In other words stop doing the lift in ways that you're really cheating the weight. Squat, bench and deadlift like they did back in the seventies or go do Pilates... Just my 3¢....
You're making something simple way more complex than it needs to be. Butt on the bench and elbow below shoulder. There's a reasonable way to interpret those rules. Mistakes and incorrect calls will be made (that happens with squat depth too), but overall this makes the sport better because it forces the athlete to show their true upper body strength.
At first I thought 'bench depth is a sensible idea, and pretty simple' but then I actually read the rules and somehow they've managed to make it impossible to judge. I hope we see some kind of revision of this before the official implementation in January, ideally we'll see some live tests in which referees actually have to judge depth but I guess we'll see. I'm glad the IPF has actually made a change like this though, despite this issues. I se it as a good move for the image of the sport.
Why don't they just say upper arm parallel? Maybe it's because people are asymmetrical and sometimes slightly rotated so they use shoulder as reference point?
I don't hate the fact there is a rule change, I dislike the ambiguity of the language and the handling of the rules when they are broken. what lights/flags to give, what they mean by "top of the shoulder joint" and how everyone has come up with different interpretations of the wording. If they are serious (and I think they should be) they should re-word the rule, or come out with actual explanations of what the rules mean, maybe host a webinar or something so we can get some consistency going. I imagine they will do so, but only once it becomes a problem at an int'l level, read: sheffield (?)
for transparency tho... my bench is my worst lift and I have no elbow depth issues and am fully unaffected even by the stricter interpretations of the rules
@@brandonhoover2120 so you want to draw the circle in your head that covers people’s shoulder and find its centre in under one second as the lifter is waiting for your press commands? 🤡
Good points Bryce. The more difficult the call for the judge, the more difficult it is for lifters to have a good experience at a meet. I would not like to see lifters have a bad experience, as this will not encourage participation in the sport. I do think that an extreme arch is a poor excuse for expressing strength in a bench press.
@@DCJayhawk57 Despite all drug test powerlifting federations being objectively trash in 2022 for their own reasons, the 3 major ones (World Powerlifting, IPF, USAPL) have good judging. In order to be an international referee, you must put in a lot of time and take multiple tests to become one.
As a lifter i think it is a lot easier to find/train consistent/perfect "depth" on bench compared to squat. Just find the fitting grip width to the max arch you want to use.
Agree with this. But the problem is like Bryce said, will all judges be gauging it the same way? If a lifters bottom position is just barely below what they think is parallel, I'd be willing to bet some judges will have the opposite opinion.. And how do you change that on meet day if you get called for it? Its kinda difficult to 'just go deeper'..
@@rioraber8095 if you bench with a style that only just hits parallel you will already know from training. so, you can either risk it getting called at comp or grip one finger narrower to be safe.
@@manuels.9693 maybe you don't bench press or compete, but changing a fingers width isn't gonna make much difference for a lot of lifters. A lot more goes into it than that for most people.
Regarding the angles of the shoulders and elbows, judging by the images it’s safe to say that the arms have to reach or break parallel. Similar to knees and hips in the squat.
It is a good step for the ipf to reconsider the rules for the bench, and it would be even better if they can address this grey areas and unclear wording for the sport to keep evolving and maintaing its core values, strength and competition.
People who set up by putting their feet on the bunch are catching strays... Lots of big archers don't/didn't have a feet-on-bench set-up, and many with such a set-up don't have a big arch. Perhaps a video about the best way to re-work a feet-on-bench set-up would be useful to many of us?
lets hope they specify the rules a bit more, regardless, this rule change is a welcome one in my book, we gotta admit some bench arches where pretty ridiculous, i mean, are we measuring strength or flexibility ?
They were yeah. But I'm starting to think that bench press might not be a good movement in a competitive sports context if it requires a million obscure rules to be "fair" or a "test of strength".
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 Different grip widths, yeah. They would basically have to manufacture bars with each different max grip width marked and indicated on the bar, because placing temporary markers during a comp where there can be multiple weight classes in a single flight is far from practical. Lifters training at commercial gyms would have to take measuring tape to see where they can grip haha
For that matter, I would consider having specific grip widths based on your body weight determined by the federation to be an obscure and arbitrary rule that's more likely to mystify people rather than bring them into the sport
@@hakarl_ "Different grip widths, yeah. They would basically have to manufacture bars with each different max grip width marked" - What a truly stupid thing to say. Electrical tape comes in many different colors, and can easily be applied to any barbell you desire. Honestly, the level of reasoning power of today's youth makes one weep. - " I would consider having specific grip widths based on your body weight determined by the federation to be an obscure and arbitrary rule that's more likely to mystify people" - More than these pathetic IPF changes, which are even more arbitrary and subjective? Christ. Zero out of ten, boy.
I think the intent of the rule change is fine, but wow they are poorly described and illustrated. IPF need to be much clearer and more professionally presented. Small ROM folks wouldn't like it, but if you are to have a depth rule then the tip of the elbow breaking the plane of the top of the bench would be an easier (and a consistent) way to judge it.
I really like the idea of elbow in line or breaking the top of the bench. Judging would be a lot easier. But this would affect a lot of lifters having to adjust their grip width.
While I personally think this rule change is a step in the right direction, I don't think the step is complete. You have identified some really good points, and I worry about the backlash from judges who might carry a personal torch. Having said that I do believe there have been people who have abused the "letter of the law" and I am glad to see they are going to have to conform a bit more, and for some this could be a major loss in PR numbers.
I feel like with the shoulder and elbow rule they're trying to say they want the arm, defined by the line from shoulder joint to elbow, be parallel to the ground. Although they ended up giving a bit of leeway with the angle in the end, which makes it more difficult.
I think they should incorporate a piece of equipment like a laser set at the correct bench depth for the lifter. It would make it easier to call for the ref and you can get them at any hardware store for relatively cheap.
The laser could be used to aid in judging, not replace it. Similar to butt lights. There's also a point where a little tech is not less practical than arbitrary, subjective, and ambiguous rules judging by human referees that are already judging 15 other things.
Hey Bryce, i think i figured out what they mean by "top of the shoulder joint", the circles make it seems like they considered the top of the shoulder as if you were standinng up, the highest point of the joint. Very poor choice of words on their part if its the case, the rule is really difficult to understand correctly, also very hard to judge if the reference point and the depth are not even determined in the same plane (top of the shoulder is in a plane perpendicular to the bench, depth is parallel). Hope what i said is clear enough. Thanks for the content !
I guess it's the acromion process which roughly sits atop the middle of the humerus ball/socket when watched from the side and also from the back view when benching. So practically a slight upward angle of the upper arm will be allowed. This will still allow for varying degrees of arch dependant on anthropometry and grip width. I think judges can do it. Remember squat depth ain't perfect either.
Top of the shoulder joint couldn't be more ambiguous. Clarity would have it as "the inferior surface of the elbow joint in parallel or below the superior surface of the shoulder joint" to account for perspective after the lifter is in an arch.
They just need to make new category for the bench record set before and after the rule change like they did for the javelin throw for example when they changed the javelin standards. I don't think its fair to just remove the records retroactively as they where within the rules when they were performed.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just make your elbow hit 90* and it’s good. I never understood powerlifting methodology when you get scrutinized for full squat depth but it’s ok to move the barbell 2” on bench and that’s ok? Big fan of your channel and thanks for the explanation.
From an athlete perspective these are all valid criticisms and need to be addressed prior to implementation. However these changes are long overdue. Sure the contortionists are few and far between, but the share of attention they get for having such an absurdly small ROM makes the entire sport look bad (or worse, boring). Powerlifting is a strength sport and the rules should be designed around that concept. I don’t doubt there will be growing pains once the new rules go into effect but in the long run, this is the right thing to do.
Bad, stupid changes are worse than no changes, because they muddy the waters. It's wierd how baseline human beings always want to "do something, do anything" rather than "do the right thing specifically", isn't it.
Solid video and i like the new rules. Agreed that more precise language for what constitutes the 'top surface of the shoulder joint' would be advisable. I guess the pictures make the intention clear. To me your own bench is well within the new rules. Page 22 under point 10 and 11 make it clear that missing the new depth rule or putting your feet on the bench will lead to red lights.
Already comments missing the entire point of the video: how are you supposed to judge this when the rules are so imprecise? I like the spirit of the rule changes, but they're technical rules and need to be described unambiguously to apply the rules fairly. Those pictures don't show minimum acceptable butt contact at all, it just shows a good example but with no real guidelines on how to apply that good example to lifters of all body sizes.
Amazing stuff! All your vids are so well done. I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. Have you ever used any of these custom meal plan tools? I got one from Next Level Diet to help me add some muscle and I actually like their plans. Was just wondering if you've heard of or tried any of them yourself. Thank you!
The no feet on the bench while setting up rule makes absolutely no sense considering the range of motion is already limited by depth. Both rules seem intended to cut down on the amount of arch people can achieve. So if there's already an "objective" (albeit hard to judge) rule for range of motion, then what purpose is no feet on the bench during set up?
Maybe they care about the visuals of the sport for the broader audience and don't want acrobatic setups like Owen Hubbard's. Also, if you need to put your feet on the bench to get your ultra arch it's prolly excessive to begin with.
idk I personally like it. Somebody could close their grip in order to reach the required range of motion, but then still potentially have a ridiculous arch due to their set up.
@@antonioprado3520 True, but that would still be putting much more load on front delts and triceps, generally making the lift harder. A step forwards in my book and probably as far as the IPF was willing to go. There are no perfect solutions here.
I like the intent of the rules, making ROM relevant. However, I do agree, after watching g the video, that the execution could of been refined. Having that said, easy fix, just release clarification like Bryce mentions!
I don’t mind the rule change but I do like most people have a problem with the lack of clarity. Not looking forward to having to ref it. It feels very subjective.
Why don't they scrap the bench and test the floor press instead? For a complete rep to count everyone's upper arm has to get to parallel and then on the way up the ams have to lock out like in a bench press. And for the squat, the lifter has to squat and touch a box with a predetermined height that ensures he/she hits parallel depth. I feel it would eliminate so much ambiguity as to whether or not this or that rep was legit.
I think the point of these bench press rule change is so that to minimize the excessiveness of the arch by requiring you to lower the bar so you're elbows are lower than your shoulders this will keep people from excessive arching and and cheating by minimizing the amount of distance they have to lower the bar to their chest
Tbh there's so many thing the sport doesn't do right or fail to hit a consistent standard. 1. The livestreams. They aren't up to par as a whole. Many times the quality is bad (Generally it feels boring to watch the whole meet on a livestream unless you're actually there) most of the time it feels like it's better wait for the recaps on either the lifters ig page or on king of the lifts. 2. Ads. I personally haven't seen a single for any upcoming meet. Many sports use ads to help remind people. Too often or not as a viewer I almost never know when a meet is happening. Despite the majority of my the things I watch and follow you would think any sort of ad for meet to pop up? Nope but if I see any post about the ufc or nba almost immediately get a ad for a upcoming major game or fight. Almost no drive to push events or big lifts on platforms like espn. 3. Incentive to compete/ pursue to reach the top. Many people say there's no money in powerlifting. Which for the most seems true. Very few if not zero contacts/signings for lifters to stay in a fed. It's weird how some of the best lifters gets a vast majority of their money from coaching, sponsors, 9-5 jobs or ad revenue. Which makes sense because there's like zero athlete branded merchandise. 4. Stagnation in the youth/ college level powerlifting. Only recently college level powerlifting has seen any sort of growth. That and some people have been able to get scholarship money from powerlifting. But that's mainly based on schools push not any federation besides hosting events. High school also seems like it isn't going anywhere or doing anything. It itself seems like it get very little coverage that and it's almost purely single and multiple lifting. Something that isn't all that popular anymore. I'm not saying I know anything about marketing or something as complicated like pushing a sport. But man it seems like there's so many thing missing. Personally I feel the new rules of the bench in the ipf isn't going to do much of anything. But than again the whole goal for the ipf isn't for marketing appeal or lifter incentive. It's to get into the Olympics which is a fine goal but doesn't look like will ever happen especially if it's trying to compete against Olympic weightlifting which already has the money, backing of multiple countries and history.
Not sure how you are caught up on the depth, it’s pretty clear and straight forward in the pictures. In line with the shoulder joint isn’t really a gray area. The shoulder joint is the acromioclavicular joint and the glenohumeral joint which isn’t what you were pointing to in the video.
I think your questions are decidedly NOT whack. (the saltines was a lil' whack though lol). Communication is the key to life! And you pointed out necessary clarifications. Well done. My personal interpretation of the elbow to shoulder rules is that they were attempting to say "the humorous must be parallel to the floor" and chose 'top of the shoulder joint' to mean: the mid point between the front of the front delt and the rear of the rear delt'
you can use a microchip device to measure the depth precisely; also, its absolutely obvious whether some1 hits depth or not and it should be the lifter's obligation to show the judges whether his lift is good or not; 99% of people that try to bench press, and not exploit the rules to gain advantage in the bench press, hit depth within a huge margin like 10cm or more below the shoulder or the bench itself
My question with this rule change is that the head ref doesn't give the "press" command until the elbows are below parallel. So what happens if a lifter brings the bar to their chest, but their elbows aren't below parallel? Do they just hold it there forever until their body gives out? This isn't a problem with squat depth because there's no "up" command, but with the way that it's written I just can't tell how this is supposed to work. Alternatively, if the head ref just gives the press command anyways and red lights for elbows not being low enough, the side refs won't see it and give white lights for a good lift. So then what would be the point of the rule in the first place?
When choosing the grip width, the lifter already "knows" if he is going to be low enough. I am pretty sure he will get the press command once the bar rests and get red lighted afterwards. You will only get a different depth if you change your setup. Hitting depth in Squats is very different and cannot be compared in that regard.
@@manuels.9693 But in that case, only the head ref will give a red light because the side refs can't tell elbow depth. So if they give it 2 whites, and the call is 2-1 good lift, then what's the point of the head ref giving the red? It will always count as a good lift anyways.
as an older lifter who has seen arches become more and more extreme over the last 40 some years, i appreciate the change. However, clarification is definitely needed. Otherwise judging is a crapshoot. getting the arms level to the ground seems a good rule, but on bigger lifters this may be difficult to judge.
@9.45 that bench is clearly illegal by new rules. To say that's tough to tell is a stretch. Bias analysis, those rules are not that difficult to judge. You could say the same with squat depth , " top surface of the legs at the hip joint is lower than the top of the knees." this is arbitrary applied. New bench rules just aligned with the squat rules.
Left of centre but... Why not use some technology that is easily accessible like Lazer levels? Make the rule that the bar must touch the chest ( easy to judge) and that (using the Lazer level set to bench height) a portion of the arm must be below the level of the bench. The use of a green Lazer means that the side judge will be easily able to spot the depth...
It sucks that there's a change in rules simply because a very small minority of the population can game them with flexibility. But if we're going to go down that route to eliminate the potential for a 1" bench press ROM, then I actually think the shoulder to elbow depth rule makes sense. Once people get used to it, it shouldn't be any more difficult to judge than squat depth. I'm genuinely confused about the other changes. As in, what problems are those rules trying to fix?
Just change the flat bench for a decline bench and shoulder wide grip will be the only option of grip, the bar most touch the midle part of the pecs on the way down . 😁
I don't share your concerns for this AND I don't put the kart back when I do groceries, so everything you forbid yourself is what I am. Btw did you listen to the last Bad Omens ? Do you think they know BMTH or is it a coincidence ?
What they should do is designate a certain distance the bar must travel during the lift. It could be in a progressive scale where the higher your height is, the longer the distance needed to be travelled. Simple isn't it?
It's a little bit sad that they had to use screen shots of RU-vid videos in the official rules, rather setting up a mock platform and taking dedicated staged photos from consistent angles.
I like the change, but IPF made it as unclear as it possibly can be. One thing makes me wonder - who is going to judge depth - the head judge? Side judges can't see it, so the bad lift gets 2:1, is it still valid (by majority) decision or what?
The time change was definitely needed. They should have kept it simple though. Elbow has to break the top plane of the bench or arm must be at least parallel to the ground/bench. The elbow to shoulder joint leaves too much up for interpretation.
Back arch should be kept at a bare minimum unless you're trying to perform a decline press...or an arch press. An overly exaggerated arch isn't "protecting your shoulders" but rather decreasing your ROM to artificially inflate one's numbers
One more thing: it is not clear what happens when the lifter does not reach depth - whether it's a red lights (like the squat) or a 'rack' instead of a 'press' (like when not touching the chest)
They mean the relatively common sense definition of the the center of the delt - i.e., the center of the shoulder both from a top down perspective, and from a side perspective. I don't think there's that much wiggle room in the definition unless a person is get ting overly complex with their analysis making the rule hypothetically sound harder to judge than it should be.
Benchpresses with very short ROM is a problem for the sport. Its to far from The general population concept of bench press. The rules are a ok direction but the new rulebook needs more work. It is embarrassingly not good enough. The joint is hard/impossible to see. Top of delts is more visual and will affect fewer lifters while still adressing the extreme ROM issue. An potential issue is that this will make referees keep lifters longer with The bar on the chest since they will have to o see The bar being motionless and check depth
You just have to assume they have uploaded the wrong pictures by accident. I can't believe they intentionally uploaded a picture where you can't see the lifters butt as an example for a failed lift due to butt position on the bench. I also love how there is a specific point that has to be reached in order to achieve depth and they use those huge circles to illustrate it which makes it more of a spectrum and therefore hard to judge objectively. They have to find a way to judge bench depth objectively without stretching the pause. I'm curious how it will be done in the first competitions.
judging SHOULD be simple regarding bench depth - the upper arm must lower than parallel to the ground. at the end we will have the same problems with the bench as with the squat. BUT I like the rule change, because the bench "pressing" as it was before was nothing but a joke.
So at 10:50 when you're showing your personal bench trying to figure out if your elbows are low enough, is that completely into your bottom position? Because that looks like like you've got another six inches to lower the bar before you touch your chest. Are you touching that to your belly?
These rules will have to be adjusted and they will have to determine what they will consider a fail. I personally think all of these should only be redlighted when it's is beyond obvious. If it's remotely close it's good
The rule does not really bother me. Just because I barely have the mobility to arch my body in the bench position. But I really have to adapt the change that my feet can't be on the bench when setting up. From the interpretation of yours, there's clearly a lot of things to debate or to clarify.
Why do we use such archaic ways of judging what’s stopping us from attaching a velocity tracking system to the barbell and then using that to track the range of motion the bar has traveled from the start command and then just set a minimal effective rom something that everyone except crazy archers would hit like 3-4 inches I know it’s not perfect but I think it’s better than the current ambiguity of these new bench rules, I foresee the new bench rules resulting in a lot more red lights than before
We can't introduce mobility rules that aren't defined according to the proportions of the lifter. Otherwise we're unnecessarily excluding lifters who can't fill those completely arbitrary standards.
@@hakarl_ I guess they don’t get to compete. Not everyone gets to compete in the other professional sports should they change the rules so they have a chance?
@@asdffdsa5690 Those rules are based on the lifter's own proportions, so it's far less exclusive than setting the same, hard standard for everyone that has disproportionate demands of people of different sizes and shapes
The fact that the IPF is one of the worlds biggest and most successful powerlifting orgs shows how far this sport still has to progress. The IPF has come out with new rules and regulations over the years that are honestly a joke. The ambiguity of these new rules shows the disorganization and lack of thought they put into some aspects of their org. Also rules such as possible bans if being coached by someone known the be on PEDs. Like I swear some of the top people controlling the IPF are somewhat brain dead
I understand and appreciate the intent of the rule change but personally I don’t see this achieving the desired affect with the general population. There are a lot of anthropometric things to consider about how a lift “looks”. I’m not even convinced that this rule will limit the arch which is what most viewers take issue with. Even the phraseology of bench ‘depth’ is confusing. It gives the perception that the upper arm needs to break the transverse plane like a squat. By definition that’s almost how it reads but not how anyone has interpreted it. In my opinion that’s the only rule that would give the perception of a bench press that everyone is looking for while also being relatively easily measured by a judge. In reality though that would impact almost every competitive lifter. Misapplication of the rule or major inconsistency is going to be more harmful to the sport than the very very small percentage of the lifting population this is targeting. All while likely not reducing arches, if at all.
I think it's good that they're trying to implement some rules about bench depth, but they've done a really bad job explaining what they're actually looking for in a lift. I think that elbow below the top of the front delt would be a much easier metric to judge.
I watch a lot of old school powerlifting vids . Back in the day lifters had a flat back on the bench . Look at vids of Mel Hennessy and Doug Young … all flat back . These lifters put in the work to get there bench press to what it is .. you will get consistent judging if you have a flat back on the bench .. seems almost simplistic …
I really don't understand the "no feet on the bench" rule. I set up using my feet on the bench and I don't have a ridiculous arch or anything. It just helps me push my traps into the bench and get really tight. I don't see why that should be disallowed.
IPF has completely messed up here IMO. The only new rule that was required was elbow depth. Easiest way to make that fair is to say the visible tip of the elbow must go below the top surface of the bench pad. I'm yet to see a compelling argument to say that's not going to work. It's as accurate as the current rules for squat depth and deadlift locked hips, so surely good enough? I personally won't compete again with IPF rules, despite being a fan of policing elbow depth. The rules are just too complicated and difficult to judge fairly from comp to comp.
I think your interpretation regarding the shoulder joint is wrong. It is clearly the glenohumeral joint. This makes the rule a little bit easier to judge, since the it basically states that your humerus has to be at least paralell (or lower) than the ground. That is the only thing you can do to make your elbow joint lower than your shoulder joint. I sincerely hope that this will be enforced strictly in the IPF, but I am sure we'll see people trying to "get away" with subpar bench depth.
It's the same when arm wrestlers use their body to pull someone's arm toward them. With this styl of bench press they might as well just use a decline bench. Every person can bench more weight in the decline position. It's not a flat bench press is what it comes down to and these guys can't flat press this weight at all.
I just tried to make sure my upper arm is paralell to the ground when I was benching and realized my ROM is 5 inches vs. when I regular bench is 28 inches... Grip width is the only way to partially fix this issue as Greg doicette has gone over before
I kind of had the same comment on Sunday's video. I don't love some of the most extreme bench arches, but like who is the IPF listening to on this? Judging from RU-vid, the venn diagram of people who get really worked up about this, and the 'sUmO iS cHeAtInG' crowd is a circle. And many of them are not even into powerlifting to start with. If they're listening to those types, is sumo their next target? Also I really don't get the belief that this is somehow killing powerlifting interest. I'm going to start some new ridiculous pet peeve and be like, 'chalk is cheating. Interest in the sport would explode if they just ban chalk.'
The depth rule is not vague. It's asking for the centre of the top of the shoulder looking from the frontal plane. Hitting the armpit is not good enough. The horse stance bencher... she didn't even have her singlet touching the bench, just uncovered hamstrings. Even if someone has noassatall, something above the glute-ham tie-in should be grazing the bench haha
I don't hate the rule change itself but I strongly dislike how it got tot his point with mainly uneducated salty gymbro's complaining that someone half their bodyweight was able to bench more than they will ever be able to. The ambiguity of this new rule is however horrible and currently impossible to judge consistently so they need to fix that.
My opinion, this is a rule that is for public perception and not for the lifters. The whole point in powerlifting is to take advantage of your mechanical advantages. A short arm lifter who can arch should be rewarded for that ability, just like a long armed lifter who pulls sumo is. Just because people say it looks dumb on the internet is no reason to change a rule that makes it hard on judges and lifters. To me this would me like MLB telling pitchers you can't throw Side armed anymore because it looks dumb.
If referees have to be given additional instructions on interpretation, it tells me that the rules aren't clear enough. The rules should be available to all and should be the only rules, and what they literally say is what the rules should be - that's how legal interpretation works - and unless referees are explicitly given discretion in their interpretation (which I don't see in the rules), this is a real recipe for referees making up stuff on the hoof. I think that this is solving one problem (which, to be fair, needed addressing) but it is raising a dozen others. I know that they consulted a number of groups and individuals before the change, but they should have published this as a public draft and then taken on board the comments. They haven't changed this rule for years. So, why rush it through when its not going to be right? From a personal point of view, I think that this creates a real issue for me. I never had an arch (as a Masters 3 my back was never that flexible) and with a bone spur in my left shoulder, when I touch or even sink the bar on the chest, I can only get one elbow as far down as I think they are now requiring. This is penalising someone who wasn't doing a 1" inch bench press. So, I'll need clarification. I'm expecting no issues at divisional level, but judging at Nationals should get stricter and could cause problems for me.
I don't understand the purpose of the 'no feet on bench' rule. Who cares how you get into the position if you can still make the depth whilst having your butt on the bench? I've seen people get massive arches without doing the feet method too.
Probably, and then, low bar squat, and who knows what they can come up with next to splinter the powerlifting community even more! But at least Gaston won't feel ridiculed by mean Instagram comments anymore, right?
Most people think the extreme back arch shit is stupid. You don’t need people that already like power lifting to view your sport as cool you need the whole world. It’s better changes happen now before the sport starts to die and get replaced with cross fit, cause they’re growing power lifting is shrinking.
