Martha Rogers Thread

Powerlifting, Olympic Weightlifting, Strongman, Highland Games

Moderator: Manveer

Post Reply
Chris
Registered User
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:44 am
Age: 38

#81

Post by Chris » Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:20 am


User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#82

Post by mbasic » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:47 am

I briefly skimmed thru her AMA reddit thing.

Apparently:

- Trains 8x a week. So say 3 days with double sessions and 2 days single sessions. or something ...I'm assuming

- Says she does squatting and pressing (Strength work) in the AM', and then technique stuff in the PM . . . So I assume this is the double sessions

- Says she doesn't bench press IIRC. So I assume then the aforementioned "pressing" is OHP, Push press, SNG press, etc

- Says several times she hates RDLs. Can't remember: Either she said they were heavy, or I'm assuming they were (they have to heavy for you to hate them). This is her slow pulling movement (fake deadlifts) I assume. I didn't see anything where she deadlifts-deadlifts...like a real deadlift .

- Curses quite a bit, frequent use of the f-word.

Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
Which, from the her high rep squat sets, you wouldn't think it be so close.
But then again, this is what Otherstm have noted about womens NME or whatever.
Can do a bunch of grindy reps in a row, but can't really do much more in the way of a ultimate1RM from that point.
So that jives I guess.

User avatar
omaniphil
Registered User
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:41 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH
Age: 42

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#83

Post by omaniphil » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:20 pm

mbasic wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:47 am I briefly skimmed thru her AMA reddit thing.

Apparently:

- Trains 8x a week. So say 3 days with double sessions and 2 days single sessions. or something ...I'm assuming

- Says she does squatting and pressing (Strength work) in the AM', and then technique stuff in the PM . . . So I assume this is the double sessions

- Says she doesn't bench press IIRC. So I assume then the aforementioned "pressing" is OHP, Push press, SNG press, etc

- Says several times she hates RDLs. Can't remember: Either she said they were heavy, or I'm assuming they were (they have to heavy for you to hate them). This is her slow pulling movement (fake deadlifts) I assume. I didn't see anything where she deadlifts-deadlifts...like a real deadlift .

- Curses quite a bit, frequent use of the f-word.

Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
Which, from the her high rep squat sets, you wouldn't think it be so close.
But then again, this is what Otherstm have noted about womens NME or whatever.
Can do a bunch of grindy reps in a row, but can't really do much more in the way of a ultimate1RM from that point.
So that jives I guess.
Maybe its just Reddit, but she comes across as semi-literate.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#84

Post by mbasic » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:32 pm

Maybe its just Reddit, but she comes across as semi-literate.
I think she is a college student.
Laments about finals, etc.
Its a work in progress.

User avatar
DirtyRed
Champion in his own mind
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#85

Post by DirtyRed » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:25 pm

Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
How is it possible to clean more than one can front squat, when a max clean is necessarily going to INCLUDE a front squat?

Regardless, I think we can determine that DR was right, as usual, and her weakness is not being strong enough. Put that on a fortune cookie but you won't.

User avatar
damufunman
Registered User
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:14 pm
Age: 36

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#86

Post by damufunman » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:46 pm

DirtyRed wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:25 pm
Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
How is it possible to clean more than one can front squat, when a max clean is necessarily going to INCLUDE a front squat?

Regardless, I think we can determine that DR was right, as usual, and her weakness is not being strong enough. Put that on a fortune cookie but you won't.
Oddly enough Scott Hisaka (sp?) at Cal Strength apparently can also clean more than he front squats. I find it hard to believe in either case though, and I can't imagine Mattie getting stronger would be a detriment to her performance...

User avatar
DirtyRed
Champion in his own mind
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#87

Post by DirtyRed » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:55 pm

damufunman wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:46 pm
DirtyRed wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:25 pm
Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
How is it possible to clean more than one can front squat, when a max clean is necessarily going to INCLUDE a front squat?

Regardless, I think we can determine that DR was right, as usual, and her weakness is not being strong enough. Put that on a fortune cookie but you won't.
Oddly enough Scott Hisaka (sp?) at Cal Strength apparently can also clean more than he front squats. I find it hard to believe in either case though, and I can't imagine Mattie getting stronger would be a detriment to her performance...
Honestly, I don't think anyone was arguing that her getting stronger would hurt her performance. The argument was everyone agreeing that she's not going to markedly improve her technique by practicing technique at this point (strength would help her technique in the same way that I can squat 500 lbs a lot more crisply now than I could when my max was 500 lbs), and she's not going to be able to get considerably stronger while remaining 5'7'' and 155 lbs of remarkably lean muscle.

I can see why her and her coaches might want her to stay at this weight class through the next Olympics, since they've already done half the "quad" with this weight class in mind, but after that point, you can write her off as ever being more than the equivalent of a baseball player that starts for 15 years and makes one All Star game if she doesn't GO UP A FUCKING WEIGHT CLASS.

Especially considering she's 22 or some shit. She should have a full decade of getting bigger and stronger, but it's not going to happen if she doesn't get bigger, and do her fucking deadlfits, and probably some goddamn bench press.

The Russians do bench press. The Russians are loads better than her. Therefore, she should do bench press and inhuman amounts of sterons

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#88

Post by mbasic » Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:55 am

DirtyRed wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:25 pm
Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
How is it possible to clean more than one can front squat, when a max clean is necessarily going to INCLUDE a front squat?

Regardless, I think we can determine that DR was right, as usual, and her weakness is not being strong enough. Put that on a fortune cookie but you won't.
@DirtyRed @everybody
TYPO !! Her clean is CLOSE to her front squat

Sorry

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#89

Post by mbasic » Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:01 am

DirtyRed wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:55 pm
damufunman wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:46 pm
DirtyRed wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:25 pm
Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
How is it possible to clean more than one can front squat, when a max clean is necessarily going to INCLUDE a front squat?

Regardless, I think we can determine that DR was right, as usual, and her weakness is not being strong enough. Put that on a fortune cookie but you won't.
Oddly enough Scott Hisaka (sp?) at Cal Strength apparently can also clean more than he front squats. I find it hard to believe in either case though, and I can't imagine Mattie getting stronger would be a detriment to her performance...
Honestly, I don't think anyone was arguing that her getting stronger would hurt her performance. The argument was everyone agreeing that she's not going to markedly improve her technique by practicing technique at this point (strength would help her technique in the same way that I can squat 500 lbs a lot more crisply now than I could when my max was 500 lbs), and she's not going to be able to get considerably stronger while remaining 5'7'' and 155 lbs of remarkably lean muscle.

I can see why her and her coaches might want her to stay at this weight class through the next Olympics, since they've already done half the "quad" with this weight class in mind, but after that point, you can write her off as ever being more than the equivalent of a baseball player that starts for 15 years and makes one All Star game if she doesn't GO UP A FUCKING WEIGHT CLASS.

Especially considering she's 22 or some shit. She should have a full decade of getting bigger and stronger, but it's not going to happen if she doesn't get bigger, and do her fucking deadlfits, and probably some goddamn bench press.

The Russians do bench press. The Russians are loads better than her. Therefore, she should do bench press and inhuman amounts of sterons
Yeah I pretty much agree with MOST of this.

Source for "all Russian women bench press in there training"?

User avatar
damufunman
Registered User
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:14 pm
Age: 36

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#90

Post by damufunman » Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:28 am

mbasic wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:55 am
DirtyRed wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:25 pm
Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
How is it possible to clean more than one can front squat, when a max clean is necessarily going to INCLUDE a front squat?

Regardless, I think we can determine that DR was right, as usual, and her weakness is not being strong enough. Put that on a fortune cookie but you won't.
@DirtyRed @everybody
TYPO !! Her clean is CLOSE to her front squat

Sorry
Shiiit, shows why you should do your own research :P

In any case, if she's thinking getting better technically (shut up), then a stronger front squat could allow her to be a little sloppy and still recover. Better technique can't hurt, but where is the marginal benefit going to be higher?

User avatar
DirtyRed
Champion in his own mind
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#91

Post by DirtyRed » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:34 pm

mbasic wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:01 am
DirtyRed wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:55 pm
damufunman wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:46 pm
DirtyRed wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:25 pm
Apparently, she says or eludes to her max.clean is just over her front squat max. (close ratio)
How is it possible to clean more than one can front squat, when a max clean is necessarily going to INCLUDE a front squat?

Regardless, I think we can determine that DR was right, as usual, and her weakness is not being strong enough. Put that on a fortune cookie but you won't.
Oddly enough Scott Hisaka (sp?) at Cal Strength apparently can also clean more than he front squats. I find it hard to believe in either case though, and I can't imagine Mattie getting stronger would be a detriment to her performance...
Honestly, I don't think anyone was arguing that her getting stronger would hurt her performance. The argument was everyone agreeing that she's not going to markedly improve her technique by practicing technique at this point (strength would help her technique in the same way that I can squat 500 lbs a lot more crisply now than I could when my max was 500 lbs), and she's not going to be able to get considerably stronger while remaining 5'7'' and 155 lbs of remarkably lean muscle.

I can see why her and her coaches might want her to stay at this weight class through the next Olympics, since they've already done half the "quad" with this weight class in mind, but after that point, you can write her off as ever being more than the equivalent of a baseball player that starts for 15 years and makes one All Star game if she doesn't GO UP A FUCKING WEIGHT CLASS.

Especially considering she's 22 or some shit. She should have a full decade of getting bigger and stronger, but it's not going to happen if she doesn't get bigger, and do her fucking deadlfits, and probably some goddamn bench press.

The Russians do bench press. The Russians are loads better than her. Therefore, she should do bench press and inhuman amounts of sterons
Yeah I pretty much agree with MOST of this.

Source for "all Russian women bench press in there training"?
I've seen videos of Russian men bench pressing heavy ass weights. There are no women, hormonally speaking, in Russian weightlifting.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#92

Post by mbasic » Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:29 am

If she could get her eating disorder under control,
she might be good again:

66.74 -98 98 101 101 124 128 131 131 232 1

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#93

Post by mbasic » Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:12 pm


User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8537
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#94

Post by mgil » Sat May 19, 2018 7:11 pm



She looks too damn thin.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#95

Post by mbasic » Sat May 19, 2018 8:13 pm

It's been hard to get data out of this meet/venue. Usually they have a live scoreboard, and the post the weighin weights and lifters ages, etc....

But this place sucks, you'd think the meet was in a Mongolia or something.

I'll post her weight from IWF site once they get their data.

The one of the few decent lifters we have that can actually complete with second tier elites has body image issues...only in merica

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Martha and PanAms

#96

Post by mbasic » Mon May 21, 2018 2:21 pm

67.8...so not too far under. But I wonder if that was a no cut 67.8.

she is stuck, I am thoroughly disappoint.

she will just trudge through the next 2 years, posting ~100/130 in various meets.

will probably get burn out, or get injured, or get the pragents before Tokyo.

or what would be funny if she does not get selected for Olympic team again,

because there are athletes with better chances at medal-ing.

The other thing that could save her is the recent BS with the weight classes being shook up.

maybe that will stir things up a little.

Their meet director finally got the data in ;)

Our girl's team got 1st place, mens 6th (if I'm reading this right)
http://www.panamwf.org/media/58435/fina ... s_book.pdf

ChrisMcCarthy1979
Registered User
Posts: 1973
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:30 am

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#97

Post by ChrisMcCarthy1979 » Mon May 21, 2018 2:45 pm

She says that the "Health Issue's that is preventing her from gaining weight more easily is going to be sorted out in a couple of months.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#98

Post by mbasic » Mon May 21, 2018 3:03 pm

ChrisMcCarthy1979 wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 2:45 pm She says that the "Health Issue's that is preventing her from gaining weight more easily is going to be sorted out in a couple of months.
Image

User avatar
DirtyRed
Champion in his own mind
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#99

Post by DirtyRed » Tue May 22, 2018 3:34 am

mbasic wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:13 pmThe one of the few decent lifters we have that can actually complete with second tier elites has body image issues...only in merica
You're USUALLY smarter than to immediately jump down the SJW route for exactly zero reason.

This is a perfect example of USA weightlifting not valuing strength enough. They think their damn near shredded, 5'7'' 150 lbs girl can get past the weights she's been lifting for two years with more TEKNEEK!!eleven!!1! Theories on what a clean and such should look like aside, she's been working at this for years. She'd be decent at GOLF by now. There is no excuse for her technique in a tremendously simpler physical activity to be anything less than as perfect as a human could have it by now.

This IS an Only In America thing because Only In America do her coaches not fucking tell her she simply can't be strong enough to get any better at this weight class. Only In America are our inbred fucking coaches stupid enough to think you can lift heavier weights by lifting prettier rather than just lifting stronger.

Her total at the last world's, which got her a bronze medal despite totaling exactly what the silver medalist totaled, is 2 kg lower than the 3rd place finisher in the 75 kg weight class. Assuming all the good lifters stay b& for steroids (if they don't, nothing Matilda does, short of a lot of steroids, is going to matter internationally), there is absolutely no way she doesn't both lift more weight and win at least as many medals by Tokyo2020 if she goes to the 75 kg class.
ChrisMcCarthy1979 wrote:She says that the "Health Issue's that is preventing her from gaining weight more easily is going to be sorted out in a couple of months.
Short of a truly impressive tape worm, there is no health issue that would make weighing more than 150 lbs too hard to solve by simply eating more.

It's very obviously not some "mental" problem like anorexia, because if THAT were the problem, she wouldn't admit she had a problem.

ChrisMcCarthy1979
Registered User
Posts: 1973
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:30 am

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#100

Post by ChrisMcCarthy1979 » Tue May 22, 2018 4:26 am

DirtyRed wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 3:34 am
ChrisMcCarthy1979 wrote:She says that the "Health Issue's that is preventing her from gaining weight more easily is going to be sorted out in a couple of months.
Short of a truly impressive tape worm, there is no health issue that would make weighing more than 150 lbs too hard to solve by simply eating more.

It's very obviously not some "mental" problem like anorexia, because if THAT were the problem, she wouldn't admit she had a problem.

I can think of a whole host of physical problems that would make it difficult for her to get past 150 because they make eating / digestion difficult.

Like dozens. I have several myself. For Fuck's Sake, just the side effects alone of the Medication taken for just about ANY problem can cause significant nausea, for example...

Post Reply