Martha Rogers Thread

Powerlifting, Olympic Weightlifting, Strongman, Highland Games

Moderator: Manveer

Post Reply
User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#281

Post by mbasic » Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:10 am

FredM wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:39 am We have the infrastructure now though to find elite olympic athletes.
Not really^

That Crossfit thing helps, a lot, sure. But its not an "infrastructure" to find explosive 8-10 y.o. kids.

As a sport, WL is a still a fringe thing compared to Soccer, Football, Wrestling, Gymnastics, T&F ...
...and I'm gonna say even basketball, because you'll see rare genetic freaks who are 5'10-6'0" go on to play
college and some Division3.14 team for four years. (these would be 97s, 102s, 109s, etc).

And regarding the height thing: China and Asian have a monopoly on those shorter body types, and have crazy national programs that
you can't replicate here in the US. No kid is going to do broomstick lifts from age 6 to 10 /hyperbole.
So we will never make a dent there (medals).

We had some hope there with Cummings and Maurus (kids having success at 16 -18).
But apparently, these kids just peak early and then, like everyone else START to flatline.

IMO: "Selected" kids have to have their technique 100% dialed in before puberty.
Then can grown and get strong in a very specific way as to weightlifting from that point
to 18-21.... Crossfit doesn't do this

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8482
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#282

Post by mgil » Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:16 am

Using Mattie and Kate as a model (as well as several others I cannot recall at the moment), I think finding "big but good gymnasts" is probably the best way to identify women's WLers. It's been decently successful and will probably continue. Also will be by women's WL will remain far more competitive at the global level than men's.

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

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#283

Post by damufunman » Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:35 am

I believe Harrison Maurus was a gymnast previouly. Not sure why he made the switch, but is on the smaller side (shorter), so maybe why he didn't end up in one of the bigger sports.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#284

Post by mbasic » Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:27 am

mgil wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:16 am Using Mattie and Kate as a model (as well as several others I cannot recall at the moment), I think finding "big but good gymnasts" is probably the best way to identify women's WLers. It's been decently successful and will probably continue. Also will be by women's WL will remain far more competitive at the global level than men's.
yeah, better than no gymnasts .... but these ex-gymnastis likely were flushed out of gymnastics because they were not super successful gymnasts.
I want the good/best gymnasts.

Could be many reasons to drop out though.
Money is one.
A lot of body dysmorphoria crap, and other bad mojo with that sport.

Mattie is/was probably was going to be too tall anyway, but then she is sort for weightlifting too.

Colon Burns and Wes Kitts were ex-college football players ....but directional school/lower divisions.

The recent small successes are just a further illustration of the problem that other US sports are always going to get the best athletes.

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8482
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#285

Post by mgil » Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:43 am

Most successful female gymnasts are really short. Something like in the 4'10" to 5'2" range. Mattie and Kate are much taller than that.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#286

Post by mbasic » Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:35 am

lolz

"Merica's #1 World Champion LITERAL Body Builder Kate Nye can lift a whole 156 freedom units"



I like the reference at Mattie Rogers as simply FAT ("Fellow American Teammate").

She isn't even worthy enough to have god given name spoken.

She would've got bonus points even said "my american teamate martha rodgers"

----------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, she did well in the interview.
Watch her face right when they put her on screen.
She goes from RBF-they-just-said-something-about-BB'ing-and-60-kilo-something to smiles and rainbows in 0.1 seconds.

This part made me laugh:
"...especially women, you can be still feminine ..."

[kate's brain quickly processes how that could be misconstrued as inappropriate gender coding / 2019-not-PC terminology]

"...or what ever you want to be"

"I mean, you could be a type 2 non gender binary part time woman, that likes being masculine, and that's okay too, and still compete with barbells as a women, that identifies as variable sex closer to the feminine side of the gender spectrum trisex fluid" something-something-and so on.
Last edited by mbasic on Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8482
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#287

Post by mgil » Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:45 am

“Wow! You’re one of the strongest women in America. Here’s a whopping $500 ($137 post taxes).”

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#288

Post by mbasic » Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:03 am

Image

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#289

Post by mbasic » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:39 pm

mgil wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:43 am Most successful female gymnasts are really short. Something like in the 4'10" to 5'2" range. Mattie and Kate are much taller than that.
I thought of this the other day when I was talking to someone about gymnasts, and their heights.

Yeah, sure "successful" one's are short, sure. Some ridiculously so ... say 4'10".

Funny enough, I googled ASU's women's team.
The average is only (i.e. not too terribly short) 5 ft 3.111 in.
There's a few 5'4"s in there, a 5'7" girl, and a 5'8"er!.
I bet they lie about how tall they are, and say they are shorter than what they are.

Oklahoma (#1?) was about the same, except they had a 4'10" and 4'11".
but a couple a 5'5"s, 5'7", 5'6" and several 5'4"s. (out of ~16 athletes)

Point is, you could be moderately tall gymnast, be a freak on the world stage towering at 5'5".....
....as long as you were half-ass good, you could still get a scholarship to a pretty damn "good" university.
Some shitty (athletics-wise) no name directional school it would be even easier.

Point is, this is another example of why america will never be good at Weightlifting internationally.
No athletes to be had from the youth stage on up. All spoken for already. Even the one's with the "wrong" body type.

Fucking Girls Softball is one of the purest-fast-twitch sports there is if you stop to think about it.
Throw, hit, sprint 60 ft., throw ....then stand around for a bit....

Its amazing we do as well as we do I guess. first world problems.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#290

Post by mbasic » Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:56 am

matilda bombs out at AOfinals.

opened with 105 for snatch. missed 3 times. her all time PR is 106.

I think she weighed in at ~75

did not watch myself ... trying to find out what kind of a CJ performances she had.

She got pissed on the IGs.
Posted her doing 110 block snatch, and some other heavy lifts from the knees/blocks...during this cycle.
Who cares?, those lifts are easier for reasons.
I spent an entire month after pan ams not even able to bend over to put my socks on. Asking Sean to help me put my pants on. Not able to pick up a bar. And here I am.

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

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#291

Post by damufunman » Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:02 am

mbasic wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:56 am matilda bombs out at AOfinals.

opened with 105 for snatch. missed 3 times. her all time PR is 106.

I think she weighed in at ~75

did not watch myself ... trying to find out what kind of a CJ performances she had.

She got pissed on the IGs.
Posted her doing 110 block snatch, and some other heavy lifts from the knees/blocks...during this cycle.
Who cares?, those lifts are easier for reasons.
I spent an entire month after pan ams not even able to bend over to put my socks on. Asking Sean to help me put my pants on. Not able to pick up a bar. And here I am.
Was wondering about this, I think she opend C&J at 135ish and bombed that too? If she's good for them in competition (presumably she is, otherwise why?? Or maybe Aimee just pushing her more than Camargo did?), then she's at least back in the running to catch Kate for one comp, but still 300 ROBI points down, so gonna have to do something close to miraculous to beat her out for Tokyo I think.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#292

Post by mbasic » Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:01 am

Did u see the reddit thread?

Some talk of her...
wait for it...Show
...going up to 87. She actually weighed 75 for this meet. All these years (while on top of her class in the USA) and she can't gain a single pound ....for years. Now, when challenged supplanted, throws on 7kg of BW.
Also: inb4 she joins the US bobsled team as a break-person. Any with a reddit account, just post the word "bobsled" in that thread. See how many upvotes you get. I would, but I've been banned once already....don't want to risk it.

Yeah, I don't think this USA meet was IWF sanctioned for ROBI points or whatever. So really, if there was a meet to try some crazy shit (crazy ass openers), this would've the one meet to do it I guess.

Those "see-i-can-do-it" training lifts she posted in the aftermath were......really meaningless. (110 block snatch, the hang clean, and the block jerk). Almost everyone (except rippetoe) knows those truncated lifts are many times easier than the comp ones for certain lifters. She couldn't produce ONE 107 an training lift video from the floor over her last two cycles? I bet if there was one, which there's not cuz I'm sure they tape EVERYTHING, she would've posted it.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#293

Post by asdf » Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:51 pm

mbasic wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:56 am matilda bombs out at AOfinals.
Is there a video of that session online?

USAW has a video page and I've watched a lot of other sessions, but the women's 76kg A isn't there.

I even tried modifying the URL of another video, but that didn't work.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#294

Post by mbasic » Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:12 am

asdf wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:51 pm
mbasic wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:56 am matilda bombs out at AOfinals.
Is there a video of that session online?

USAW has a video page and I've watched a lot of other sessions, but the women's 76kg A isn't there.

I even tried modifying the URL of another video, but that didn't work.
nope
If you click on the 76A session video thumbnail, the men's 96B session comes up.
Tried clicking on the 96B session then, and that works fine.
76B is the 76B, and tried several others, all seem to work ok.
Its almost as if USAW is doing this on purpose....

I was unsuccessful finding a video too ... or even a results sheet.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#295

Post by asdf » Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:02 am

mbasic wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:12 am Its almost as if USAW is doing this on purpose....
Hahaha. I was thinking the same thing!

If no one answers your post on the WL forum, maybe I'll write Phil directly and ask.

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

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#296

Post by damufunman » Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:15 am

Results:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HNQNg ... lS4n88YzHa

Looking for video now. I found the session list earlier this morning, but couldn't get the 76A. It might've gotten overwritten by the last day, I believe live streams on youTube are saved, though maybe not after something goes in its place?

ETA: for some reason the USAW are unlisted on youTube, so unless there's a link I don't know how to pull it up...

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#297

Post by asdf » Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:27 am

damufunman wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:15 am ETA: for some reason the USAW are unlisted on youTube, so unless there's a link I don't know how to pull it up...
Yeah, I couldn't find anything on YouTube. I watched the other sessions on USAW's website, here:

https://www.teamusa.org/usa-weightlifting/video

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#298

Post by mbasic » Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:47 pm

asdf wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:27 am
damufunman wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:15 am ETA: for some reason the USAW are unlisted on youTube, so unless there's a link I don't know how to pull it up...
Yeah, I couldn't find anything on YouTube. I watched the other sessions on USAW's website, here:

https://www.teamusa.org/usa-weightlifting/video
at 1:47 pm mountain time ... the 76A session video seems to load now.

The real treat is that Johnson girl.
Opened with 105 and made it look easy.
Scratched 2nd, and made 109 for a 3rd....I believe that's a US record of some sort.
--------------------
EDIT: the narrative by the announcers before matilda lifts is priceless.
They jinx her pretty bad there.
I wish I could copy paste the transcript.

"oh man with the added body weight...you put on the mass and you can lift moar weight..see she's opening w 105 now"
"....and beats johnson here will qualify as a 76 for panams..."

*first mattie miss*
then quickly backpedaling "added bw throws your COG way off"

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#299

Post by asdf » Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:01 pm

mbasic wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:47 pmthe 76A session video seems to load now.
Watched most of the session. I was under the impression that Mattie went 0 for 6 so I was surprised when she made her first clean & jerk.

I couldn't believe that they didn't show Shacasia setting the American record in the snatch. The screen was stuck on the digital leaderboard during her lift. Fortunately, as I was skipping through the intermission, I saw that they replayed it. Why didn't they just edit the video before posting?

Finally, did it bother anyone else how dirty and scuffed the Rogue plates looked? The yellows especially looked like they'd been pulled out of a garage gym. And the Rogue platform was warped. Lifters would try to position the bar, and it would roll. They're re-position it, and it would roll. Neither are a big deal, I guess. But not what I would expect from Rogue. I don't remember scuffed plates at the CrossFit Games!

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Martha Rogers Thread

#300

Post by mbasic » Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:06 am

asdf wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:01 pm
mbasic wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:47 pmthe 76A session video seems to load now.
Watched most of the session. I was under the impression that Mattie went 0 for 6 so I was surprised when she made her first clean & jerk.

I couldn't believe that they didn't show Shacasia setting the American record in the snatch. The screen was stuck on the digital leaderboard during her lift. Fortunately, as I was skipping through the intermission, I saw that they replayed it. Why didn't they just edit the video before posting?
maybe they were trying to fix/edit that, that's why the link wouldn't work (for a couple of days after the meet :roll: )

Actually, kinda glad that happened .... because the replay view is so much better than the live-front view.
That whole meet should be shot/viewed/shown from that oblique angle that Shacasia's reply was shown from.
I don't know why no one can figure that out. The dead-on forwards ant-man view is trash IMO.
Front is really only good for elbows, which is important i guess, but the TV audience isn't the ones judging the meet.
On my screen, you can't make out half the shit on the scoreboard in the background... (the green completely blots out the text).
I don't see the point.

That 45 angle you see so much more going on with the lift....front to back wise...which is critical.
Seeing the coaches reaction is a small treat as well.

Image

Finally, did it bother anyone else how dirty and scuffed the Rogue plates looked? The yellows especially looked like they'd been pulled out of a garage gym. And the Rogue platform was warped. Lifters would try to position the bar, and it would roll. They're re-position it, and it would roll. Neither are a big deal, I guess. But not what I would expect from Rogue. I don't remember scuffed plates at the CrossFit Games!
yes, there were memes/trash posts made on IG already comparing the USAW platform to some kind of staircase.

Post Reply