Controversies in Olympic Weightlifting

[Kregna]

I'm interested to hear the opinions on a few things that seem controversial from my time on the SS board. I've never gotten too into it it, before, so apologies if there appears to be a consensus already for these questions. The information is a bit scattered all over the place on SS so I'd be keen to hear people's opinions on the below:

1. Hip position in clean/snatch
2. Jumping serving as the triple extension
3. The usefulness of low bar squats for WL

Hip position in clean/snatch
I've seen Klokov and others say that lower hips lets you use your quads more off the floor. But if the hips just end up rising first, anyway, the knees have extended without contributing much to the bar movement (just causing the femurs to pivot around the knees to lift the hips to the position they want to be in). This then leaves the bar forward of the mid-foot. So why would lower hips let you use your quads more? I've seen something about an S-curved bar path, but I don't think that's the argument that's being made when people say it uses more quads (perhaps that's another question).

Jumping serving as the triple extension
Jumping for the triple extension is a habit I'm being asked to break by the coach I've hired. She points to top level Russian weightlifters whose feet don't come far off the ground as examples, and to be fair, they don't appear to. This is even the case with lighter weights, which makes me think it's not a case of the weight on the bar limiting the jumping - it's just that they don't use a jump for that full and final extension. So what's wrong with the jump? Is it that by lifting your body higher, you're now farther away from the crouched catch position?

The usefulness of low bar squats for WL
Obviously the preferred method of squatting for WL is the High Bar squat. I believe the argument is that it more closely mimics the catch position in the clean/snatch than a Low Bar squat does. Also that the High Bar squat is easier on the lower back, which is already under a lot of stress from the WL movements. Low Bar squats strengthen the hip extensors more, which are surely the source of the power in the WL movements, and so I would think that a squat that strengthens these muscles must be a good movement. Has anyone tried both squats alongside WL training?

[mbasic]

Search function




Kidding...I'll address what I think when I'm sitting down at a computer keyboard...fwiw

[Murelli]

Hip position in clean/snatch
I've seen Klokov and others say that lower hips lets you use your quads more off the floor. But if the hips just end up rising first, anyway, the knees have extended without contributing much to the bar movement (just causing the femurs to pivot around the knees to lift the hips to the position they want to be in). This then leaves the bar forward of the mid-foot. So why would lower hips let you use your quads more? I've seen something about an S-curved bar path, but I don't think that's the argument that's being made when people say it uses more quads (perhaps that's another question).

Hips high or low don't matter, IMO. The midfoot or forefoot positioning is what makes the most difference in that discussion. I'll leave the more intelligent people discussing S path vs. "straight" path (it doesn't exist in WL movements, duh). What I believe is that the straight path might be the most efficient pull, but will not lead to the most efficient ballistic because of the tendency of the thighs to kick the bar up and forward and the need to bring the bar back to you a little, whereas a S path takes it to a good place for catching. The problem with the S is consistency. I am still not so sure what to think about this.

Jumping serving as the triple extension
Jumping for the triple extension is a habit I'm being asked to break by the coach I've hired. She points to top level Russian weightlifters whose feet don't come far off the ground as examples, and to be fair, they don't appear to. This is even the case with lighter weights, which makes me think it's not a case of the weight on the bar limiting the jumping - it's just that they don't use a jump for that full and final extension. So what's wrong with the jump? Is it that by lifting your body higher, you're now farther away from the crouched catch position?

Jumping leads to donkey kicking which is a waste of energy, and might make your catch slower even without the kicking. It's not a problem for power lifts (ha!), but it is for the full lifts, because you will lose precious time when you have to throw yourself under the bar.

The usefulness of low bar squats for WL
Obviously the preferred method of squatting for WL is the High Bar squat. I believe the argument is that it more closely mimics the catch position in the clean/snatch than a Low Bar squat does. Also that the High Bar squat is easier on the lower back, which is already under a lot of stress from the WL movements. Low Bar squats strengthen the hip extensors more, which are surely the source of the power in the WL movements, and so I would think that a squat that strengthens these muscles must be a good movement. Has anyone tried both squats alongside WL training?

If you deadlift you can forego low bar and use high bar to spare your lower back. If you low bar + deadlift, how much will you still have left for all that pulling+squatting volume (full lifts = pull+extension+squat) ? Screw carryover, you are already front squatting heavy and pulling The Exact Movements.

[mbasic]

Jumping serving as the triple extension
Jumping for the triple extension is a habit I'm being asked to break by the coach I've hired. She points to top level Russian weightlifters whose feet don't come far off the ground as examples, and to be fair, they don't appear to. This is even the case with lighter weights, which makes me think it's not a case of the weight on the bar limiting the jumping - it's just that they don't use a jump for that full and final extension. So what's wrong with the jump? Is it that by lifting your body higher, you're now farther away from the crouched catch position?

My $0.02

There two things about the CUE or idea of "jumping":

#1-JUMP! - to extend the ankles, knees, and hips to send the bar upwards.
and
#2 JUMP UNDER- when you lift your feet, knees to get your legs into the squat-catch position.

So yeah, the feet leave the floor from time to time.
If one has the ability and timing to USE THE ARMS AGGRESSIVELY to pull AT THE RIGHT INSTANT at the triple extension. . . the feet MAY not leave the ground.
The hip flexors are raising the knees/feet at the same rate the athlete is pulling him self downward with his arms against the bar. . . which will just look like the athlete is on his toes and then slips into his squat stance.

I you are "arm pulling" your self underneath a HEAVILY loaded bar, one will seem to pull under faster than a lightly loaded bar.

When the weights are super light when you are first starting out, Kregna, somethings don't make sense, or feel weird, or the coach has a difficult time explaining the concepts.

Coaching a beginner is different than coaching an intermediate of advanced lifter.
Do you have a donkey kick? (I said KICK!).
Do you have some unnecessary stomp thing going on?
She maybe trying to fix other things.
Some teach the feet should "slide" sideways into your squat/recovery stance. . .to just "move your feet" rather than jump.
Keeping your feet on the floor could be a cue for finishing the pull too.
Maybe you are jumping to soon?
There could be a lot more going on if you catch my drift
You are going to just have to trust your coach and hope she's a good one.

https://www.catalystathletics.com/artic ... eet-in-th/
. . but read this, some of this my apply to you . . .some may not at this stage in the game.
In that picture of the six guys getting airborne, two are "top Russians" btw.
Sorry no good answers.

[Kregna]

Thanks for the replies

Hip position in clean/snatch
Hips high or low don't matter, IMO. The midfoot or forefoot positioning is what makes the most difference in that discussion. I'll leave the more intelligent people discussing S path vs. "straight" path (it doesn't exist in WL movements, duh). What I believe is that the straight path might be the most efficient pull, but will not lead to the most efficient ballistic because of the tendency of the thighs to kick the bar up and forward and the need to bring the bar back to you a little, whereas a S path takes it to a good place for catching. The problem with the S is consistency. I am still not so sure what to think about this.

Ok so the argument is that it produces less of a straight line (from the floor) but puts your body in a mechanically favourable position, otherwise. Maybe I need to do reading on dis S-curve thing. I would've thought the position you end up in is similar as the hips appear to rise first in a low hip clean/snatch, anyway?

Jumping serving as the triple extension
Jumping leads to donkey kicking which is a waste of energy, and might make your catch slower even without the kicking. It's not a problem for power lifts (ha!), but it is for the full lifts, because you will lose precious time when you have to throw yourself under the bar.

Yeah I have a bit of a donkey kick, which does look like a waste of energy and moves your feet farther from where they need to be

The usefulness of low bar squats for WL
If you deadlift you can forego low bar and use high bar to spare your lower back. If you low bar + deadlift, how much will you still have left for all that pulling+squatting volume (full lifts = pull+extension+squat) ? Screw carryover, you are already front squatting heavy and pulling The Exact Movements.

You make a good point about carryover. If you are doing the movements themselves frequently and front squats, you are getting a lot of position specific training. Although maybe the argument would be made that high bar carries over to front squats more. I'm gonna keep low bar for now as I like it and maybe swap it out if I feel dat fatigue (or more likely, will reduce DL volume)

Jumping serving as the triple extension
Jumping for the triple extension is a habit I'm being asked to break by the coach I've hired. She points to top level Russian weightlifters whose feet don't come far off the ground as examples, and to be fair, they don't appear to. This is even the case with lighter weights, which makes me think it's not a case of the weight on the bar limiting the jumping - it's just that they don't use a jump for that full and final extension. So what's wrong with the jump? Is it that by lifting your body higher, you're now farther away from the crouched catch position?

My $0.02

There two things about the CUE or idea of "jumping":

#1-JUMP! - to extend the ankles, knees, and hips to send the bar upwards.
and
#2 JUMP UNDER- when you lift your feet, knees to get your legs into the squat-catch position.

So yeah, the feet leave the floor from time to time.
If one has the ability and timing to USE THE ARMS AGGRESSIVELY to pull AT THE RIGHT INSTANT at the triple extension. . . the feet MAY not leave the ground.
The hip flexors are raising the knees/feet at the same rate the athlete is pulling him self downward with his arms against the bar. . . which will just look like the athlete is on his toes and then slips into his squat stance.

I you are "arm pulling" your self underneath a HEAVILY loaded bar, one will seem to pull under faster than a lightly loaded bar.

When the weights are super light when you are first starting out, Kregna, somethings don't make sense, or feel weird, or the coach has a difficult time explaining the concepts.

Coaching a beginner is different than coaching an intermediate of advanced lifter.
Do you have a donkey kick? (I said KICK!).
Do you have some unnecessary stomp thing going on?
She maybe trying to fix other things.
Some teach the feet should "slide" sideways into your squat/recovery stance. . .to just "move your feet" rather than jump.
Keeping your feet on the floor could be a cue for finishing the pull too.
Maybe you are jumping to soon?
There could be a lot more going on if you catch my drift
You are going to just have to trust your coach and hope she's a good one.

https://www.catalystathletics.com/artic ... eet-in-th/
. . but read this, some of this my apply to you . . .some may not at this stage in the game.
In that picture of the six guys getting airborne, two are "top Russians" btw.
Sorry no good answers.

Yeah I am trusting her while I am being coached by her but also want to understand it myself. I have a bit of a donkey kick but I think her problem is with the jump, generally. In any case, I am trying to fix it. I'm just trying to understand why the jump is taught by some (Rippetoe, Pendlay, etc) and shunned by others.

I'll read up on the S curve before I follow up with questions on that

[Kregna]

I have another question on belts, if you don't mind...

So I've started doing front squats as mine are rubbish relative to my back squats. I've not bothered with a belt, as I think I'm not going to be cleaning with a belt, and the purpose of my front squats is to improve my cleans - so surely I want to make the squats as similar as possible to the cleans. Anything wrong with this logic?

I know some weightlifters use those weird narrow-at-the-front belts, however, is this silly? The argument put forward by SS was that the abs press against the belt so it makes no sense to have the part that is held against the abs to be narrower. I think the reason they wear these is because it's hard to get into position with a normal belt, but is the narrow belt worth using?

[Murelli]

Ok so the argument is that it produces less of a straight line (from the floor) but puts your body in a mechanically favourable position, otherwise. Maybe I need to do reading on dis S-curve thing. I would've thought the position you end up in is similar as the hips appear to rise first in a low hip clean/snatch, anyway?

Not everyone does that. Look at MBasic's lifting. He starts with the bar forward of midfoot and lifts it straight up without any wasted hip rise (the bar starts up the same moment as his hips). Look at a lot of other lifters, olympic ones. The same happens. There's more than one way to skin a cat and all that, but in the end, for the first pull, a clean or a snatch is a submaximal deadlift, and as so can be done with suboptimal mechanics that might lead to better positioning later on. I don't know why, but in my experience, in the few reps I lifted with the bar a little ahead of midfoot I got it higher and had less of a tendency for arm pulling.

[mbasic]

I have another question on belts, if you don't mind...

So I've started doing front squats as mine are rubbish relative to my back squats. I've not bothered with a belt, as I think I'm not going to be cleaning with a belt, and the purpose of my front squats is to improve my cleans - so surely I want to make the squats as similar as possible to the cleans. Anything wrong with this logic?

I know some weightlifters use those weird narrow-at-the-front belts, however, is this silly? The argument put forward by SS was that the abs press against the belt so it makes no sense to have the part that is held against the abs to be narrower. I think the reason they wear these is because it's hard to get into position with a normal belt, but is the narrow belt worth using?

Yeah, some have said getting into good backextension with a fullsize belt is tough.
Have said either a narrower (3") belt is better, OR I would say, yeah the one's with narrower front part.
Less compression on the front/abs to allow them to stretch out, you can extend your lumbar spine better.

Getting into good extension in the snatch start is a mother f.

[mbasic]

Ok so the argument is that it produces less of a straight line (from the floor) but puts your body in a mechanically favourable position, otherwise. Maybe I need to do reading on dis S-curve thing. I would've thought the position you end up in is similar as the hips appear to rise first in a low hip clean/snatch, anyway?

Not everyone does that. Look at MBasic's lifting. He starts with the bar forward of midfoot and lifts it straight up without any wasted hip rise (the bar starts up the same moment as his hips). Look at a lot of other lifters, olympic ones. The same happens. There's more than one way to skin a cat and all that, but in the end, for the first pull, a clean or a snatch is a submaximal deadlift, and as so can be done with suboptimal mechanics that might lead to better positioning later on. I don't know why, but in my experience, in the few reps I lifted with the bar a little ahead of midfoot I got it higher and had less of a tendency for arm pulling.

Not much back "angle increasing here".

If you look at the slo mo part, it flattens out barely as he first pulls, but after the bar breaks off the floor, it really doesn't change too terribly much.

258 kg



______________________________________________________________________

I wouldn't get hung up on the first pull much.

If you want to do it like your SS deadlift, so be it.
As long as:
- your entire back is in good solid extension (be honest).
- you feel you can move fast
- you can get into a solid 2nd pull position from here
- the bar does not move out away from off the floor (your shoulder isn't excessively over the bar)
- hit your shins in the 1st pull (whereas it moves out because of this)

Also, from the standpoint of a "recreational lifter" standpoint. . . .
. . . at our level.
I don't think anyone is going to realize the theoretical leverage advantage over 1-2.5"inches in that start position.
Not 1 pound (uhhh 1/2 kilo). If its a thing. We have so many other things to get better at that will yield many more kilos

[damufunman]

My (inexperienced) take on these

Hip position in clean/snatch
I've seen Klokov and others say that lower hips lets you use your quads more off the floor. But if the hips just end up rising first, anyway, the knees have extended without contributing much to the bar movement (just causing the femurs to pivot around the knees to lift the hips to the position they want to be in). This then leaves the bar forward of the mid-foot. So why would lower hips let you use your quads more? I've seen something about an S-curved bar path, but I don't think that's the argument that's being made when people say it uses more quads (perhaps that's another question).

I don't understand the "using the quads more off the floor" argument, your knees are going to extend to break the weight off the floor no matter what, and the bar ends up at the same place anyway, so the amount of work done will be the same between hips high/low. And for the most part all the videos I've seen show the lifter's back angle move to more horizontal from this position, so why not start there? I don't buy the stretch reflex reason I've heard; not enough lengthening/speed to get a real stretch-shortening cycle effect. I've also read that the more vertical torso at the start reduces low back fatigue during the pull. This is silly, how much can <1 second of low-grade fatigue (assuming a strong enough back from deadlifting, snatch/clean weights very submaximal, etc) affect the second pull?

Jumping serving as the triple extension
Jumping for the triple extension is a habit I'm being asked to break by the coach I've hired. She points to top level Russian weightlifters whose feet don't come far off the ground as examples, and to be fair, they don't appear to. This is even the case with lighter weights, which makes me think it's not a case of the weight on the bar limiting the jumping - it's just that they don't use a jump for that full and final extension. So what's wrong with the jump? Is it that by lifting your body higher, you're now farther away from the crouched catch position?

I think this is more of a semantics thing. As Mike pointed out, some of the Catalyst images show "top lifters" with their feet several inches up. I think the main issue is that people who learn to jump (myself included) have trouble getting the third pull under the bar right. I think that's mostly a timing thing though. Obviously pulling yourself under with arms is important, it's not just a drop. But learning to not pull with the arms while jumping (triple extension), then switching to pulling your legs up (could call this triple flexion, I guess) while pulling the bar up/your body down, and then locking it out overhead (Snatch, obv) is a difficult skill/timing to learn. I think the "catapult" is really just putting more emphasis on the pull under, with similar triple extension (or at least hip and knee extension) possibly cutting the full extension short so that you don't leave the ground. If you are applying force through the midfoot then there will be some moment around the ankle which is countered by a calf contraction. Once the load on the foot is reduced (heel starts coming up) you'll get dorsiflexion, but it isn't really an active thing. I think the catapult vs triple extension functions more as a coaching emphasis and what cues are used. I would guess that it would depend on the lifter (and how they learned) which approach works better.

The usefulness of low bar squats for WL
Obviously the preferred method of squatting for WL is the High Bar squat. I believe the argument is that it more closely mimics the catch position in the clean/snatch than a Low Bar squat does. Also that the High Bar squat is easier on the lower back, which is already under a lot of stress from the WL movements. Low Bar squats strengthen the hip extensors more, which are surely the source of the power in the WL movements, and so I would think that a squat that strengthens these muscles must be a good movement. Has anyone tried both squats alongside WL training?

The position argument is silly in my opinion. The HBBS is different enough from the catch position (bar on back, different torso angles due to bar position differences, necessarily, at least in the clean. Snatch is a little more fuzzy) that this argument doesn't make sense. That's why WLers front squat right? As for position similarities for the snatch, the snatch is so much lighter that the catch and recovery aren't even a big factor if you have the overhead stability. The main reason to squat is to improve strength (and power) for the second pull. This is where you get your bar height, which is the strength/power component. The second pull is powered by the hips and quads primarily. The LBBS works the hips more, and quads as much as the HBBS. I CAN see a reason to not be doing slow reps in the squat, but the low bar/high bar argument I have yet to see good logic for why the high bar is better.

[Igor]

The LBBS works the hips more, and quads as much as the HBBS. I CAN see a reason to not be doing slow reps in the squat, but the low bar/high bar argument I have yet to see good logic for why the high bar is better.

LBBS doesn't work the quads as much as highbar, especially when the latter is done ATG. The amount of knee flexion in the bottom of the ATG highbar squat is much greater than in a lowbar. Granted lowbar can be loaded with heavier weights but when highbar is regularly trained it shouldn't be worse than 90% of your lowbar.

[damufunman]

The LBBS works the hips more, and quads as much as the HBBS. I CAN see a reason to not be doing slow reps in the squat, but the low bar/high bar argument I have yet to see good logic for why the high bar is better.

LBBS doesn't work the quads as much as highbar, especially when the latter is done ATG. The amount of knee flexion in the bottom of the ATG highbar squat is much greater than in a lowbar. Granted lowbar can be loaded with heavier weights but when highbar is regularly trained it shouldn't be worse than 90% of your lowbar.

Sure, say this is the case. Front squats cover this range of motion, which is really only relevant in the clean recovery (and snatch recovery but at much lighter weights). At no point during the rest of the lifts do the knees flex as much as in an ATG squat. MAYBE start of the snatch, but even that I think is pushing it, it's actually closer to depth of a parallel low bar squat. I think the fact that the low bar can work the hips more and quads, arguably, as much as high bar (albeit through a slightly shorter range of motion, I'd guess about 90%, which makes the work done the same) makes the LBBS more efficient in general strength development, which is the purpose of squatting for WL.

[Murelli]

Sure, say this is the case. Front squats cover this range of motion, which is really only relevant in the clean recovery (and snatch recovery but at much lighter weights). At no point during the rest of the lifts do the knees flex as much as in an ATG squat. MAYBE start of the snatch, but even that I think is pushing it, it's actually closer to depth of a parallel low bar squat. I think the fact that the low bar can work the hips more and quads, arguably, as much as high bar (albeit through a slightly shorter range of motion, I'd guess about 90%, which makes the work done the same) makes the LBBS more efficient in general strength development, which is the purpose of squatting for WL.

What's your take on the lower back fatigue, in the context of low bar x high bar for WL programs?

[mbasic]

I've started my own camp regarding these issues:

#1- Its the nobody knows for sure,

#2- And its too complicated to workout on paper or model.

#3- So many pros and cons and trade offs; impossible to quantify.

#4- Rip et al are not going to be able to process concepts like "stylistic differences", etc. because of the way that they think.
(the lifter "feelz" better this way, etc)

There are basic concepts that need to be applied and adhered to . . .other than that IDGAF.

I enjoy watching Mary Peck's snatch, seem efficient, nice straight extension, no watsed movement, etc.

But I can see the advantages of THIS as well.
Even though SHE and the bar is all over the place:

[damufunman]

Sure, say this is the case. Front squats cover this range of motion, which is really only relevant in the clean recovery (and snatch recovery but at much lighter weights). At no point during the rest of the lifts do the knees flex as much as in an ATG squat. MAYBE start of the snatch, but even that I think is pushing it, it's actually closer to depth of a parallel low bar squat. I think the fact that the low bar can work the hips more and quads, arguably, as much as high bar (albeit through a slightly shorter range of motion, I'd guess about 90%, which makes the work done the same) makes the LBBS more efficient in general strength development, which is the purpose of squatting for WL.

What's your take on the lower back fatigue, in the context of low bar x high bar for WL programs?

Haven't done high bar, so can't comment there (note that this applies to all of my high bar points), but doing low bar, TM approach (5x5 plus 1x5/2x3/3x2/5x1 with front squats on light day) and deadlifting 5RMs everyweek (and RDLs on volume day), with 2 WLing days. I actually saw better marginally progress on my deadlifts than before starting WLing, and my Snatch went from 72kg to 84kg and C&J 90kg to 106kg in a little under 2 months. I dunno, I didn't really notice low back fatigue session to session, at least nothing that hindered me.

[OCG]

The LBBS works the hips more, and quads as much as the HBBS. I CAN see a reason to not be doing slow reps in the squat, but the low bar/high bar argument I have yet to see good logic for why the high bar is better.

LBBS doesn't work the quads as much as highbar, especially when the latter is done ATG. The amount of knee flexion in the bottom of the ATG highbar squat is much greater than in a lowbar. Granted lowbar can be loaded with heavier weights but when highbar is regularly trained it shouldn't be worse than 90% of your lowbar.

Given the quads (or most of it anyway) don't cross the hip (not knee), I disagree. Plus, as has already been noted, front squats are a thing.

So I've started doing front squats as mine are rubbish relative to my back squats. I've not bothered with a belt, as I think I'm not going to be cleaning with a belt, and the purpose of my front squats is to improve my cleans - so surely I want to make the squats as similar as possible to the cleans. Anything wrong with this logic?

I know some weightlifters use those weird narrow-at-the-front belts, however, is this silly? The argument put forward by SS was that the abs press against the belt so it makes no sense to have the part that is held against the abs to be narrower. I think the reason they wear these is because it's hard to get into position with a normal belt, but is the narrow belt worth using?

Which is going to make you stronger, heavier and tighter front squats or lighter ones? I think for training the front squat to get stronger, you should wear a belt, for exactly the same reason you'd wear a belt during the back squat. It assists in the necessary epic valsalva, and becoming the valsalva intensity standard.

I think a shitty belt is better than no belt. Wear what you need to in order to get a good position. I'm currently wearing a 6.5mm plain leather belt to deadlift in. Is it worse than my very solid 13mm belt? Fuck yes. But it's still a lot better than no belt at all.

1. Hip position in clean/snatch
2. Jumping serving as the triple extension
3. The usefulness of low bar squats for WL

1. It's more "skinny question mark versus a very narrow S" bar path than "straight vs loopy". As noted, it's never going to be entirely straight, and that's just fine. Now a huge loopy S, yeah, probably not great. Really, your clean should be such a submaximal pull off of the floor that you shouldn't need to care what position it's in.

2. This seems more of a cueing than a technique issue.

3. Pause squat 320kg and make it look easy, then you won't have to worry about what position the bar is in when you do that.

[damufunman]

Given the quads (or most of it anyway) don't cross the knee, I disagree. Plus, as has already been noted, front squats are a thing.

I'm curious what you mean by this... as it reads it is untrue. Do you mean hip instead of knee or something else?

Which is going to make you stronger, heavier and tighter front squats or lighter ones? I think for training the front squat to get stronger, you should wear a belt, for exactly the same reason you'd wear a belt during the back squat. It assists in the necessary epic valsalva, and becoming the valsalva intensity standard.

I think a shitty belt is better than no belt. Wear what you need to in order to get a good position. I'm currently wearing a 6.5mm plain leather belt to deadlift in. Is it worse than my very solid 13mm belt? Fuck yes. But it's still a lot better than no belt at all.

1. Hip position in clean/snatch
2. Jumping serving as the triple extension
3. The usefulness of low bar squats for WL

1. It's more "skinny question mark versus a very narrow S" bar path than "straight vs loopy". As noted, it's never going to be entirely straight, and that's just fine. Now a huge loopy S, yeah, probably not great. Really, your clean should be such a submaximal pull off of the floor that you shouldn't need to care what position it's in.

If one is cleaning a significant amount compared to bodyweight (possibly even close to 1x BW?) the horizontal movement of the bar needs to be reacted by something, and that is typically going to be your own mass moving in the opposite direction. That's a lot of extra movement of the bar and the body that don't need to be there, I'd argue (though again, without quantifiable data) that this is not just fine if we're talking about trying to add a few kilos to your lift. If like Mike pointed out that you're just lifting recreationally, you don't care what you lift, yada yada, then sure, whatever do what you want. But really who is approaching lifting this way, especially if they're training hard? I want to improve my lifts, and if lifting differently helps to facilitate that then I'm going to do it.

2. This seems more of a cueing than a technique issue.

3. Pause squat 320kg and make it look easy, then you won't have to worry about what position the bar is in when you do that.

What's the best position for the bar to get to an easy 320kg pause squat and why?

[OCG]

I'm curious what you mean by this... as it reads it is untrue. Do you mean hip instead of knee or something else?

Yeah, that one. The majority of the quad doesn't cross the hip.

If one is cleaning a significant amount compared to bodyweight (possibly even close to 1x BW?) the horizontal movement of the bar needs to be reacted by something, and that is typically going to be your own mass moving in the opposite direction. That's a lot of extra movement of the bar and the body that don't need to be there, I'd argue (though again, without quantifiable data) that this is not just fine if we're talking about trying to add a few kilos to your lift. If like Mike pointed out that you're just lifting recreationally, you don't care what you lift, yada yada, then sure, whatever do what you want. But really who is approaching lifting this way, especially if they're training hard? I want to improve my lifts, and if lifting differently helps to facilitate that then I'm going to do it.

When you go into triple extension and slam your hips into the bar there's always going to be some forwards movement at the top. This is unavoidable. Really, the debate is, should I start with the bar over mid foot and my hips a little higher to accommodate that, or do I put the bar 2" further forwards? I'm not sure I care that much.

[damufunman]

When you go into triple extension and slam your hips into the bar there's always going to be some forwards movement at the top. This is unavoidable.

I would posit that slamming your hips into the bar is not what you want to be doing either. I see no reason to hyperextend your hips, as that doesn't directly add height to the bar, and while it may provide a little extra energy into the bar via the extra movement of the shoulders back, the hips forward into the bar is more problematic than the extra little bit you get from the extra extension. I think really the forward movement of the bar (assuming no hip bumping) is actually the bar countering the body's movement away to get around and under the bar.

Really, the debate is, should I start with the bar over mid foot and my hips a little higher to accommodate that, or do I put the bar 2" further forwards? I'm not sure I care that much.

I still don't see a better argument for the bar forward than for it over midfoot.

[mbasic]

I still don't see a better argument for the bar forward than for it over midfoot.

How about the bar moving forward out away from you?