all posts post new thread

Old Forum New blog post on the old-time strongmen

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Journeyman

Level 5 Valued Member
I just wrote up a new article on some of the European weightlifting competitions they had in the early 1900s: http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-seven-lift-total-continental.html

I'd noticed a lot of questions about 'the oldtime strongmen' around here so I figured I'd share. This is part of a series, I plan on writing about quite a few individuals and their training--saxon, sandow, sig klein, maxick, and goerner for sure. Lemme know if you'd like to read about anyone else in particular... hope you enjoy the article!
 
Interesting stuff. I enjoyed it. I am looking forward to Goerner's article and his training. Good list of names to start with.
 
Thomas Inch and Edward Aston are good too.

Saxon and Klein are my favourites. ‘

Other things for research are John Grimek are the weightlifting “swing”. What old time strongmen such as Saxon and in fact weightlifters to this day would know as the “swing” (not the GS based movement).
 
Thanks guys!

Herrmannelig, I really couldn't find much quality info on aston and inch in terms of their actual training--both have books that you can find online but it's pretty run-of-the-mill stuff.

The one arm swing is really interesting, and I actually do think it's similar to the GS swing--i.e. more a matter of controlling/directing momentum along a circular path, at least for the first part, than the hardstyle 'hip snap'.

Also, I've never tried squatting under one arm swings, jerks, and snatches, as 'the oldtimers' did, but I think it'd be great if more people today did do those movements. You won't be putting up 200+ pounds overhead with one hand otherwise (well, unless you're georgiadis, tsangouridis, or a heavyweight strongman competitor...).
 
Journeyman, why do you say that the old timers were less flexible? What is that based on, and what do you think led to modern weightlifters being more flexible?
 
It's not 'the oldtimers' as a group so much as the European superheavies, the ones who lifted in the 'continental' style. They didn't have good technique, they didn't bother to become fast or flexible, so their competitions revolved around brute power. In the olympics today, even the fattest guys are gonna be doing squat cleans. The German 'continental' lifters just did a sort of high pull, rested the bar on their bellies, and then shouldered it (continental). Same goes for layback in the press. They didn't want to be limited by the 'military' form, so layback was allowed. This wasn't a sophisticated double layback olympic press either, just leaning back as far as they could/needed to, to press the bar out. They allowed their off hand to be placed on their leg/knee in the one arm snatch, too, unlike the 'clean' style of lifting.

So I say they weren't flexible because I read it multiple places, and because their entire style of lifting was based off of minimal skill and flexibility. Big guys lifting big weights, just like the WSM today--judges won't be calling anyone on hitching deadlifts, using leg drive on overhead 'press', etc.

Modern weightlifters are more flexible because it's advantageous to be flexible, given the rules. The Chinese have so much usable flexibility that many of them can do bottoms-up overhead squats with nearly the same poundage that they use on front squats. Because of that, they can drop right to the bottom to catch a squat jerk. This gives them an advantage over lifters who have to catch the bar higher.

Weightlifting today is an entirely different sport. In PTTP, Pavel remarks how naim suleymenaglou (sp?) could snatch more than paul anderson, despite weighing like 280 pounds less. It's because technique has become tremendously refined. In the '50s and '60s, lifters just pulled the bar up high and stepped forwards under it, to snatch it. In the 1900s, they probably didn't even bother to step under it, that's why snatch poundages were relatively low.

Anyway, flexibility was more of a thing for the french, who loved 'clean' lifting; and the guys who did gymnastics as well as heavy lifting (sandow, maxick, sig klein, otto arco). Saxon, Aston etc. were doubtless more flexible than the 'continental' competitors as well, at least in some places, because they could bent press. I doubt that steinbach, swoboda, et al could bent press at all.

/long response, hope that answered your question decently.
 
^ I should also remark that 'flexible lifters' became more widespread as lifting became more widespread. It's hard to lump all 'oldtimers' into one group... in the 1900s, most gymnast/acrobat types would probably never lift weights. By the 1920s, there was a decent number of people doing both.

This was probably also a cultural thing, sandow sorta led the pack in terms of having a physique that didn't look like a house, and being able to do handstands, flips etc. not just lift weights. This was more desirable for many audiences (not in all places) and given the fascination at that time with the classical era, people who had classical-type physiques became more in demand. At least, that's my reasoning.
 
Sandow was a showman, and an exhibitionist to an unusual degree. The bodytypes of old time strongmen varied a lot. Obviously, the big burly men with no particular technique capture the imagination, but I think in reality, professional strongmen (people who money competing) probably had a range of bodytypes.

It was also very common, and in fact, a given, that any athletic person was into a range of activities. Even the early modern Olympics had people competing in a variety of events (for example, I happen to know the Scotsman, Launceston Elliot, who won a gold medal in weightlifting also competed in the 100 meters, and wrestling (and he was defeated by a German in wrestling, who was also a gymnastics medalist in the same Olympics!). And he did the rope climbing event. Prince George's performance in the 1896 Olympics is also quite interesting.

These old contests are most interesting, as they usually show many valuable lessons, rather than the highly competitive and intensely specialized medalists of today. What can we learn from a man who was trained as a weightlifter since he was 4 years old, under a state program (steroids, training, etc) and was the best of the entire selection of possible lifters for a two lift event? Whereas the old lifters, often competing without strict rules, but under the eyes of each other and other lifters, in a wide variety of lifts, and often engaging well in many sports can teach us a lot.
  given the fascination at that time with the classical era, people who had classical-type physiques became more in demand
Click to expand...
On a side note, it is very interesting that the "classical ideal" was almost entirely a fantasy. When they uncovered Pompeii and its preserved graffiti (reading that one realizes nothing has changed at all, and in fact, they were quite open about a lot of things) they were in denial for a while and tried to hide it. Also, the "classical" statues did not look like what we see. They painted them...bright garish colours. If they showed what they actually looked like, we would think it is some 60's free love artist high on weed or something.
 
Thank you for the detailed response Journeyman, that was very interesting and I learned a lot from it.  Might I humbly suggest that you add that to your blog post, or make it a blog post of it's own?
 
Good reading! IronHistory.com is a great resource too when it comes to oldtime strongmen. It is unrivaled as far as I'm concerned.
 
Herrmannelig- yes, of course--after all, there were weight classes. However, that's just another part of the 'continental' style; there wasn't as much attention paid to lightweights over there at first. Of course, maxick and otto arco did eventually change that.... And personally, I think we can learn a great deal from the lifters of today. Specialization is the best way forwards in any endeavor, even if you're 'specializing' in a few things at once--and today's strength athletes are far superior specialists to the lifters of the 1900s, 1920s, even 1950s.... Not to mention that the 'specialists' of today have huge athletic bases behind them. Look at the chinese or russian olympic weightlifting teams, top-level strongmen competitors, raw powerlifters (even geared ones--look at westside!) and even natural bodybuilders are all very strong and athletically capable in many ways. Just because a competition only involves two lifts does not mean that the athlete is only good at those two lifts. As for the 'classical era'; I do believe you're spot on. The victorian obsession with physical culture at the Grecian/Roman ideal probably brought some of their weightlifters far closer to said 'ideal' than most if not all of the classical athletes.

Jason--yeah I might put it up as a 'part two', thanks for the idea!

Ben--thanks, I have done reading on ironhistory, but I've never been, or wanted to be, a member on that site.
 
Awesome and amazing pictures!  Sandow's shoulders and upper body are insane.  Looks like the real deal to me.  There is some dense strength there for sure.
 
Herrmannelig- yes, of course–after all, there were weight classes. However, that’s just another part of the ‘continental’ style; there wasn’t as much attention paid to lightweights over there at first. Of course, maxick and otto arco did eventually change that…. And personally, I think we can learn a great deal from the lifters of today. Specialization is the best way forwards in any endeavor, even if you’re ‘specializing’ in a few things at once–and today’s strength athletes are far superior specialists to the lifters of the 1900s, 1920s, even 1950s…. Not to mention that the ‘specialists’ of today have huge athletic bases behind them. Look at the chinese or russian olympic weightlifting teams, top-level strongmen competitors, raw powerlifters (even geared ones–look at westside!) and even natural bodybuilders are all very strong and athletically capable in many ways.
Click to expand...
The lessons found in today's athletes are usually no different from those found in earlier.
Just because a competition only involves two lifts does not mean that the athlete is only good at those two lifts.
Click to expand...
Of course, I did not mean that they were, just that the competition is aimed at a very specific and known event, and that their training will be for this event. Look at the bodies of any given powerlifting or Olympic weightlifting weight class at the high levels of competition, and you'll see they are all very similar. This is evident in many events. They become efficient and highly trained for very specific tasks and anything which gets in the way is forsaken.

Could Arthur Saxon be top in any lifting sport now? I am not sure. Could any lifter of today compete with him as he did back then? I do not think so.

I studied the earliest GS competitions, and I found some amazing achievements. However, it was also different from any such competition today.

In this day and age, any competition usually becomes highly standardized and strictly judged. This removes many applicable training methods for people not seeking competition. For example, the kettlebell lifting champions of the first national kettlebell lifting contest in 1948 probably could not compete today, and of course, lifters of today could not compete then.

That is what I meant. Those competing usually have very specific goals, ones which may not be that useful to us. We would do better to look at being "good enough" at a wide variety of events, rather than competitive in a few. I believe that kind of strength is better. And it is what we find in the past, with competitors competing in a wide variety of sports and being accused of being specialized was an insult.

Also. the reality of drugs must be fully recognized. This is a "dark" area of sports because it is illegal/taboo, but I believe full disclosure without penalties would be better for everybody. Those using would be able to use what they willed, those not using would know what is going on, those looking for progress would know what it takes, etc. For example, some people believe IFBB pro bodybuilders can make it without using any drugs.

In the last summer Olympics, China became indignant and offended when people speculated that certain individuals were obviously on an intense drug program (when women out perform men, one can be sure of drugging, as women respond much better to such drugs).  That is the state of sport today. Just because we cannot say "which" drugs they are taking (even if they have a known name, they are likely state secrets), that doesn't mean we cannot say with certainty that they are using. Drug tests only test for known substances, not unknown, and anybody using in competition is using something new or something in a new manner.

And this is why I think the "old time" athletes are the best, and perhaps the only, examples we need. Because they are untainted by drugs, they usually compete in multiple events and respond to challenges, and they are not bound by very strict rules which do not apply outside of competition.
As for the ‘classical era’; I do believe you’re spot on. The victorian obsession with physical culture at the Grecian/Roman ideal probably brought some of their weightlifters far closer to said ‘ideal’ than most if not all of the classical athletes.
Click to expand...
The respect for the universal human condition, rather than being obsessed with one's modern idea of "progress" is probably a good thing. To often, we forget that humans of the past are the same as humans of today, and that the circumstances are different, but the minds and bodies are the same.
 
The lessons found in today’s athletes are usually no different from those found in earlier

I believe that they are different now, actually. For example, there was no form of periodization or cycling program in the 1900s. And most, if not all, lifters did not realize the benefits of being well conditioned. Some were—but many were not. The same goes for flexibility. (I’m primarily referring to those superheavyweights in both cases; many top powerlifters, strongmen, and weightlifters of today in the heavyweight classes are actually very well conditioned, unlike back then).

 

 The competition is aimed at a very specific and known event, and that their training will be for this event. Look at the bodies of any given powerlifting or Olympic weightlifting weight class at the high levels of competition, and you’ll see they are all very similar. This is evident in many events. They become efficient and highly trained for very specific tasks and anything which gets in the way is forsaken.

True. But guess what? Look at the best acrobats in any era. Look at the best lifters in the 1900s as well. Similar bodytypes will be better at similar tasks, due to natural leverage advantages. And you really do seem to think that today’s athletes are narrowly focused (‘anything that gets in the way…’ etc) but at the top level they really aren’t. Look at the Chinese and Olympic weightlifting teams. The lifters have a good conditioning base, do plenty of running and gymnastics, weighted bodyweight exercises, and are plenty strong at full squats, deadlifts, pulls and cleans from different heights, bench and overhead press, and so forth. If anything, they’re more versatile than many ‘old timers’ because they don’t focus on a few ‘pet’ lifts for show purposes.

 

Could Arthur Saxon be top in any lifting sport now? I am not sure. Could any lifter of today compete with him as he did back then? I do not think so.

Definitely not, if you’re talking a ‘time machine’ scenario. With today’s training (and drugs) sure, he had the potential. But even if you take away the drug factor (usually 10% or so, according to Olympic vs. international records) saxon would be absolutely destroyed in a test of strength by a world-class lifter of a similar bodyweight today. The bent press is really the only thing he’d have an advantage on, and if you made it a hypothetical competition of say, 10 different lifts, even including the bent press saxon would lose. He was a tremendous athlete and strongman, but the numbers don’t lie. He snatched about 250lb and clean and jerked around 340, weighing 205. Compare those to the numbers put up by strongmen and Olympic lifters today, even taking, say, 10% off for the drug factor. You’re comparing a very strong guy who trained in a bunch of lifts, rather haphazardly, without real competition; to athletes with modern training methods (again, periodization, the idea of working weak points, a much better knowledge of anatomy and physiology, stiffer competition, a worldwide rather than regional stage). Even without the drugs, today’s lifters have every other advantage as well.

 

In this day and age, any competition usually becomes highly standardized and strictly judged. This removes many applicable training methods for people not seeking competition.

Not really. It just raises the bar—and people do meet it. Amateur, drug free lifters can far surpass professional lifters of a century or so ago, look at highland games competitors today, for example. Or weightlifting. There are drug free lifters competing on a regional level who can outsnatch, out C&J, out squat and deadlift, out bench, and probably (not certainly) out-press the best lifters in the world of a hundred years ago. Look at glenn pendlay’s lifters, for example.

Competition was strictly judged then, too, just not standardized. I’m talking about ‘clean’ style lifting here, of course.

 

Those competing usually have very specific goals, ones which may not be that useful to us. We would do better to look at being “good enough” at a wide variety of events, rather than competitive in a few. I believe that kind of strength is better. And it is what we find in the past, with competitors competing in a wide variety of sports and being accused of being specialized was an insult.

I agree that general physical ability is more desirable than an overly narrow focus, but specialized competition does not mean that the athletes are only competitive in said specific events. You are presenting the crossfit argument here—but I believe it is better to specialize on a few events/lifts/whatever, and have a wide athletic base beneath that that carries over to just about everything else… that is ideal in my mind, and that is what the best strength athletes in the world today do.

 

Rather than being obsessed with one’s modern idea of “progress” is probably a good thing. To often, we forget that humans of the past are the same as humans of today, and that the circumstances are different, but the minds and bodies are the same.

I would agree—but also say that, at least in your posts above, you have gone too far the other way, waxing nostalgic while dismissing the progress that has been made in strength sports in the past century. I too think that ‘full disclosure’ is necessary with performance enhancing drugs, but that will not happen while they are illegal in many places. And really, drugs are the only downside I can see… today’s strength world is superior in just about every way. Again:

-specific training

-the idea of an athletic base, or gpp

-strength as a general phenomenon to support other sports

-periodization, cycling, on and offseasons, peaking….

-unified athletics: despite the mess of today’s powerlifting federations, competition is much more standardized today, as you said. This helps athletes worldwide compete on the same terms, and, combined with the availability of information on their competitors, raises the level of competition. This is a third of the reason why records are higher today. The other parts are better training methods, and of course, drugs.

-a more accepted and publicized strength world than the one of a century ago.

 

Now, I’m playing devil’s advocate here just a bit. As you can see, I’m very enthusiastic about the pre-drug era, and learning about the lifters and training methods from that time. However, I do my best to keep an objective eye and thus do not completely dismiss the advancements that have been made in the modern era.
 
...Rereading my post, and herrmannelig's, perhaps I came off more negative than intended. Oh well-- I nonetheless stand by my point about specialization, superior knowledge, and more public access (that is a double edged sword, of course) in strength training today.

Of course, I believe there is much to be learned that has been 'all but' forgotten from the drug free era... that's why I'm writing an extremely long and expansive blog article series on it, haha. At the same time, though, we mustn't rhapsodize on about 'the good old days' while ignoring the wealth of information, experience, and competitive know-how that has arisen in the past century (or even past 50 years). In either case, learning the separate the wheat from the chaff is the most important skill anyone can have when obtaining new or recent knowledge, or uncovering old.

And (just in case) to clarify my position on 'what is desirable'--obtain general ability, by specializing. Focus is key, but not too much. I wrote a bit about finding this balance point, or trying to, in the marvin eder article.
 
I believe that they are different now, actually. For example, there was no form of periodization or cycling program in the 1900s.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, some have claimed that the cycling programs were directly inspired by drug cycles, to track when they were on the right gear.

Soviet Era sports science, as advanced as it was, almost entirely neglects this aspect, so how do we know exactly what was going on when the state secrets and not in the open? The East German program is perhaps the most well known, and that can be studied to see how they did things. I am suspicious of anything after WWII for the most part for this reason.

Look at Lance Armstrong...if a man who is in a sport which has been plagued with cheating and doping since it started, had people claim to know of his cheating, and yet, he managed to stay in the game for so long, and then it was found out that not only was he using multiple substances, they were the same ones others got busted for. No chemical trickery...just human deception.

About Arthur Saxon, you are forgetting a lot. Competition would be more dynamic. Look at how his challenge with Sandow. How many lifters could do that with him?

Also, you are forgetting equipment. Bumper plates, finely machined parts, rotating parts, etc all make it possible to lift more weight. I think Arthur Saxon would be good now, and not just in the bent press, and I think if today's lifters were given the equipment he had, they would not be so impressive.

Take a look at the Inch Dumbbell for example. The challenge is to press it, but few people can even pick it up.

Also, Arthur Saxon also boxed or wrestled (or both, I forget) and he was quite good.
You are presenting the crossfit argument here—but I believe it is better to specialize on a few events/lifts/whatever, and have a wide athletic base beneath that that carries over to just about everything else… that is ideal in my mind, and that is what the best strength athletes in the world today do.
Click to expand...
Them's fighting words... Crossfit? I shudder at the thought.

I am talking about strength training, primarily, here. Arthur Saxon writes this:
Do not make the mistake of limiting your practices to any one set of lifts, such as the four known as the Amateur Championship lifts. Practice everything. Single and double-handed press in dumb-bells and bar bells, single and double-handed lifts, all the way in dumb-bells and bar bells, snatching and swinging, jerking and pressing, lying down with weights, supporting weights, lifting weights while laid on the back, ring weights, human weights, and if possible, double handed lifts to the knee and harness lifts, also holding the bell aloft and raising bells aloft by what is known as the Continental style of lifting...
Click to expand...
In The Development of Physical Power, I recommend one read the following chapters:

* The Saxon Definition of Strength

* Routine of Training

Those will show his views better than his fame in the Bent Press does.

The selection of lifts for powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting are very narrow, and have become narrow over time. Look at the early Olympic weighlifting over time. Single handed lifting and the press should still be there, and it is presumed that weightlifters do train with those lifts, but would things be different if single handed lifting were the lifts today? What if the press remained and the jerk was removed?

What if powerlifting selected the Deadlift, Squat, and Bent Press?

Or what if there were no distinction, and there were a wide variety of standard lifts which could be used in competition and only chosen right before the event took place, so all lifters had to be competitive in 20 lifts, although, only 3 would be in the competition and they did not know which 3 until they started?

Or what if drugs were not used at all?

What if the equipment was not standard? Olympic weightlifters lift modern equipment, but what if they could be given bars of any kind, such as with shot loaded bells, thicker handles, nothing rotating, no bumper plates?

All these factors are why I think the lessons of the high levels of competition are of minimal use.
However, I do my best to keep an objective eye and thus do not completely dismiss the advancements that have been made in the modern era.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong: the Olympic weightlifting events in the Olympics are one of the few events I care to observe (unfortunately, in America, we get to watch swimming and gymnastics), but I fully recognize that Lü Xiaojun is nothing like me and the way he trains really has nothing to do with me and it is just an impressive display of what is possible. I have to recognize that he is a product of the Chinese training system (they start really young) and training program which includes things which are not public knowledge.

He is a product of modern advances, and as I stated, they have very little that I can apply. What can I learn from him?

Is he strong? Yes, very. Is he powerful? Yes, the best. Is he skilled in the lifts? Extremely. What can I learn from him and his training?
 
…Rereading my post, and herrmannelig’s, perhaps I came off more negative than intended. Oh well– I nonetheless stand by my point about specialization, superior knowledge, and more public access (that is a double edged sword, of course) in strength training today.

Of course, I believe there is much to be learned that has been ‘all but’ forgotten from the drug free era… that’s why I’m writing an extremely long and expansive blog article series on it, haha. At the same time, though, we mustn’t rhapsodize on about ‘the good old days’ while ignoring the wealth of information, experience, and competitive know-how that has arisen in the past century (or even past 50 years). In either case, learning the separate the wheat from the chaff is the most important skill anyone can have when obtaining new or recent knowledge, or uncovering old.

And (just in case) to clarify my position on ‘what is desirable’–obtain general ability, by specializing. Focus is key, but not too much. I wrote a bit about finding this balance point, or trying to, in the marvin eder article.
Click to expand...
And after posting what I did above, you posted this. No harm is done. I hope I clarified what I meant.

I also realize the length of what I posted...I hope it isn't too long. I wish we had a way to preview posts, as it is hard to judge the length while writing.

Information today must be evaluated. Exactly what is being shared? For example, taking bits of information from Soviet lifting programs must be extremely scrutinized, due to the secrecy of state drug programs. One must be careful one is getting all the facts.

Arthur Saxon's books freely admit that there are components to strength outside of one's control, and he clearly states that he was always strong, regardless of training. He doesn't play the "I was a weakling" game like the others did to sell products.

That is one reason why I like most of the writings of those associated with Strong First. A lot of research and a wide variety of sources. Looking what the big picture and determining exactly what is going on, and how to teach it to others, is a very valuable thing. The best lifters of the past could not really describe such things well, as they learned it through experience.

So, I am not opposed to modern studies, and in fact, I think they are necessary to keep the information clear and learn-able, instead of being an arcane skill of the past.

Imagine how difficult it would be to learn how to snatch a kettlebell with only a kettlebell and a picture series of someone doing it? Arthur Saxon's advice on snatching a kettlebell (what we would call it now) does address how to do it, but the hint is almost lost in the text and it was not stressed. One has to very carefully analyze what he writes to get the most important information.

On the contrary, Pavel has bullet point lists, pictures, examples, and drills to get it right. And that is just in the books. And that is what is most valuable.
 
Cycling programs:

Purely linear cycles are most definitely made more effective by 1. The use of drugs and 2. Natural ability. I don’t think most 150-pound lifters are going to get to a 500-pound squat, as ed coan did, just by using linear cycles. The benefits of periodization go beyond that, though, because for those of us who are not naturally strong and/or built for strength, loading/unloading protocols enable more consistent progress, and less chance of injury over time. This is one fallacy of ‘the oldtimers’’ way of doing things—constant, heavy training, lots of single attempts, lots of rising bar workouts, rarely any time off (indeed, many of them had to perform daily, even at submaximal attempts this was extremely demanding)… I ask you, unless we are naturally strong (and many of the most successful men ‘back then’ really were, despite their advertising) what can we learn from that? Something, but not everything (if that makes sense). I’ll have more than a few blog posts on the training protocols that they used, but many of them are of limited value to me in particular. This is the difficulty of learning about strength from those who are naturally strong, whether we’re talking about ‘Apollon’ or Bill Kazmeier.

 

Drug usage over time:

As I stated above, drugs are a game-changer but won’t make a world record breaker out of a poor athlete. Most of them, as far as I know, accelerate progress and increase the maximal ‘ceiling’ of ability, by roughly 10 percent or so. It’s hard to tell because the most talented individuals these days are not ‘natural’, thus, the gap between ‘natural’ and ‘assisted’ is wider than it would be otherwise. In my opinion. And saying that because a certain individual uses drugs, we can learn absolutely nothing from him, is ludicrous in my mind. As for deception, that has become a necessary part of the game when everyone is using but the public must be kept in the dark. In case I hadn’t made it clear already, I am all for drug use in professional sports so long as athletes compete on an even playing field. I am against drug use on a personal level (i.e. I can never see an instance in which I’d be personally motivated to touch the stuff) but I believe that individual athletes should have the freedom to choose—and hopefully stay safe, but that’s up to them.

 

Saxon’s abilities:

Again, Saxon was strong. The point of a comparison is somewhat moot because if he competed today, he’d have to do lifts he had not trained for, or had little technical ability in. One of today’s strongmen or lifters, I believe would have a greater advantage just due to their technical prowess—look at how Koklyaev broke an old world record using the same barbell originally used; a 1’’ non rotating implement. Either way, though, if Saxon was around today he’d probably train differently, for different lifts, and be an excellent competitor… but when we are talking about naturally strong individuals it is difficult to make any sort of reasonable comparison. I think that Konstantin pozdeev would’ve been an absolute beast at the ‘seven lift total’, if he trained for it. Other than that, we can’t really compare.

 

Inch dumbbell:

The inch is one example of the trickery and showmanship that occurred in the drug free era, which is another reason why very careful analysis of the available information from that time period is necessary. Thomas inch almost definitely never pressed his actual challenge bell (he had several duplicates) and perhaps never even deadlifted it. I’ll again turn to the koklyaev example, being able to break old records with old equipment. Or, perhaps, look at how easily today’s heavyweight strongmen toy with the apollon’s axle replicas. Before it was a WSM event, perhaps 5 men ever pressed them overhead. Now, it’s a routine event. People are stronger now—and as I said before, part of it is superior training, part of it is stiffer (standardized!) competition, part of it is drugs. Naturally strong people will always be strong, but we do have better training and more knowledge now.

 

Saxon on strength training:

I definitely agree with Saxon. However, you and I are looking at what he said in two different ways. He was far from an ‘all-rounder’, look at his lifts and you’ll see that he was a specialist in pinch lifting, the bent press, and the two hands anyhow. He was strong all around but that came from specializing and really practicing just a few lifts, and beyond that, having a broad athletic base beneath him—exactly like the best of today’s lifters. And, for this reason, he was able to outlift his competitors who really did try to be ‘good at everything’. At least, that’s what I get out of looking at his training. You may see something different.

I’ve read both of his books many times.

 

‘All around weightlifting’:

It’s called the usawa or the isawa, the ‘wide variety of standard lifts’, and different ones being in each competition. If you wanted to see that. Of course, the most gifted athletes do not compete, so it’s difficult to measure. Which is why the lifts that have remained in somewhat regular use (mainly, the strict press, clean, continental, and jerk) are really the only ones we can measure. I have no doubt that if the ‘old’ lifts were in vogue today, records would be broken. We have more access to talent now, and superior knowledge of training, even if you don’t think that we have necessarily ‘better’ training methods… and of course, drugs, whether or not you’d like to include them. I do think that (for example) a 400+ pound bent press, perhaps several, would occur… but since the lift will probably never be regularly practiced again (in fact, I’ve never seen a video of a real bent press, i.e. without any pressout… most are exaggerated side presses) saxon’s record will probably always stand.

 

Standardization:

Standardization is a good thing. In the 1900s, athletes did not compete on a level playing field. Josef Steinbach lost several competitions to a man who insisted on using his own uniquely balanced globe barbell. Charles Rigoulot (sp?) set almost all of his world records, which were far ahead of anyone else’s at the time, on a custom-made barbell as well—8 feet long and more pliable than most barbells. And, as I mentioned above, there were stage weights, fake weights, trickery, showmanship—that doesn’t really exist now, thanks to standardization. I do believe that competition on a level playing field is the best way to determine athletic talent and competition… if you want odd objects, watch a strongman competition. Plenty of kegs, sandbags, stones, trucks etc. are not standardized (or, less standardized) because competitions are different and it’s all about ‘who shows up’. I believe that zydrunas savickas is the strongest man ever lived, btw, drugs or no drugs and regardless of his inability to bent press… followed closely by Kaz.

 

Lu xiaojun:

I think we can learn plenty from him. His actual training protocols are of little use to me, but if I was a competitive weightlifter, knowing the variety of assistance exercises he uses, the importance he places on flexibility and bodyweight exercises, some of the specific training sessions he’s done, etc. can only help me. Knowledge really is power when it comes to this stuff… applying it properly and knowing whether it can be applied to you is the main thing. We can learn a great deal from today’s athletes, just like we can learn a great deal from the 1900s weightlifters, despite not sharing circumstances with either of them.

 

Evaluation of information:

See above. I do believe we’re on the same page here! For the most part, anyhow. Everything must be taken into consideration… that goes for any information, from any source, and any era.

 

Detailed instruction:

This is a definite advance. More knowledge and more widespread knowledge is a huge boon to those who know how to use it, imo.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom