When I wrote "Convincingly Deep" four years ago, (reproduced below) I had no idea that it would prove as controversial as it eventually was. My idea was to provide instruction for lifters to give them the tools to take charge of their destiny on the platform, rather than leave their success and failure to the judges. In short, I wanted to explain the level of performance, and the reasons for it, which the athlete could strive for that to have flawless competition experiences.

The positive effect was that people understood how to exceed the standard, and train for it. Those who tried easily improved their pass/fail percentage.

The down side of the article was that both referees and many athletes saw the empty half of the glass. The judges used it as a reason to tighten up refereeing to be more consistent with what was possible overseas. Note, that I am not saying what consistently happens in international competition, but what can happen. The upshot is that we, in the U.S. have some of the most rigorous refereeing in the world. There are good and bad points to that as well, but we must really examine whether we want to diverge too far from the international standard. On the up side, if you are a U.S. lifter competing in IPF competition, meeting the refereeing standard is NO PROBLEM. The down side is that we often squat deeper, pause longer, pull slower and more deliberately than our competition. It is a compliment, however, when coaches from many other countries remark on the improvements that our lifters have made in technique over the last several years.

The other down side has been that those critical of USAPL, both inside and outside of the federation have used my comments to say that our judging represents an unfair standard. In general, I don't think that is true. Our referees can read the rules as well as anyone, and many have years of experience adapting to new interpretations, standards, and varying federation guidelines, although there are always exceptions. If anything, I would say that we are more willing than ever to look at the performance of individual officials to assure that they are meeting, and not exceeding the standard. Unfortunately, my original purpose was lost by these individuals: that is, to make sure that your lifting is as flawless as it can be so that whether your lift is passed depends on your strength, preparation, and technique, not a judgment call by the referees.

So, what is the standard? It is the same one that is depicted in the rule book. The diagrams in the IPF rule book, now the standard in USAPL show squats that break parallel, deadlifts that come up cleanly and fully locked out, without hitching or supporting the bar on the thighs, and benches that are paused and lock out evenly. If anything, the international standard has relaxed some, and ours should follow. The consistency of calls in the IPF is very good, and partisan judging is virtually never seen. Those who engage in such practices are uniformly reprimanded, or removed from the chair. Our refereeing will follow the trend, especially as more officials advance through the levels of certification and gain exposure to the international standard.

What does that mean to you, then? In many ways the same things it meant when I wrote the original "Convincingly Deep." If you squat beyond the standard, there is no question that your lifts will be passed. If your technique is marginal, you leave it to the judge to determine whether you pass or not. If your bench is a touch and go, you have given control of whether you get a white or red light to someone else. To the degree that your pause is "definite and visible (from the IPF rule book)," there will be no question as to whether it is a good lift. If your deadlift is smooth and locks cleanly, you will get the lift. And those things are in your control.

A great deal of discussion has been had regarding the difficulties of satisfying the squat standard encountered in IPF competition over the past two years. This year, though, I am happy to say that the teams I coached, Women's and Juniors so far, have not had any problem meeting the standard. It seems the transition is over, at least as far as our adjusting our training and competition technique to compensate for the differences. I would also add that I have observed fewer and fewer red lights for depth in USAPL competition over the same period of time. Most of those having difficulty seem to be new lifters, those who have lifted in unsanctioned (e.g. high school) competitions, and members of federations who follow a different standard for depth.

1. You can squat as much deep as parallel, IF you train for it;
2. When you decide to adjust to a deeper standard, there is a transition time to make it work. This may be several months;
3. You can't feel for the bottom and come up from far below parallel;
4. You won't "get buried" by the weight. If you move quick enough, your muscle fibers and equipment will rebound you up at least to half way;
5. Work deep below parallel, i.e. partial movements in the bottom, help. They may only help your comfort level in the bottom, but that is certainly worth something;
6. It's easier to squat deep with a more narrow stance. Most of us don't have the hip flexibility to do wide squats deep;
7. It takes as much effort and training time to squat high as deep;
8. You can't train high and "drop it in" at the meet. It doesn't work, at least not consistently.
9. If you don't squat deep, you may end up being extremely frustrated by your lack of success. You may even give up powerlifting.

The following is a paragraph written for lifters I work with in Alaska about the time of the IPF affiliation. I think it helps explain the squat standard and where it comes from:

"First, let me explain my understanding of the new squat standard. On paper, the standard appears not to have changed. In reality, it is very different. This likely comes from the people in the IPF who establish the standard and are responsible for you getting your squats passed. Virtually all the IPF referrees in Europe, and many in other countries are old Olympic lifters. In fact, powerlifting is controlled by the weightlifting federations of many countries. The referees who call powerlifting meets also officiate weightlifting meets. For those of you who haven't watched an Olympic lifter do squat cleans (where he or she picks the weight up to the shoulders, squatting under it), they drop down so that their butt almost touches the floor. They are probably 4-8 inches below parallel, depending on their size. If they don't get down that low, they can't get under the weight. That is what the weightlifting coaches see attempt after attempt. Besides that, most of the powerlifters in Eastern Europe are converted Olympic lifters as well, so they still squat that deep. The landmark for a weightlifting referee is seeing you drop well below parallel and to see your hips pivot around your knee, which serves as hinge for your squats. If the pivot and drop are not present, dipping slightly below parallel and/or feeling for the bottom is not going to work. Unfortunately, with the higher standard in America over the past two decades, and all the organizations with high standards, our referees have let the subjective pivot point in the hip take precedence. American referees watch your hips, those from other parts of the world will not."

Those who have lifted in international rarely have problems with depth when they get back. They come home and modify their training to build strength at the bottom of the squat, and devote themselves to technical precision. Watch for them in meets at home. The difference is noticeable. They are the people who NEVER get red lights for depth.