THE TRUTH ABOUT WEIGHTLIFTING - (circa 1911) - CHAPTER 9 - By Alan Calvert

We now come to the much-discussed question of the measurements of the various strong-men. It is a very peculiar fact that every professional strong man, no matter how small he is, seems to consider that he is in duty bound to make the announcement that he has a 48-inch chest and 16-inch upper arm.

Shortly after Sandow came to America he published a book on physical culture. Several times in this book he gave his measurements. He generally claimed a 48-inch normal chest, 60-inch expanded chest, 19-inch upper arm, 28-inch thigh, and he gave his weight as 200 lbs. If Sandow had possessed the measurements he claimed he would have weighed at least 240 lbs. Sandow made one fatal oversight in publishing this book, for in the back of the volume he published a table of his measurements, as taken by Dr. Sargeant, of Harvard. Dr. Sargeant's measurements showed that Sandow's normal chest was only 44, his expanded chest 47 inches, upper arm 16 3/4 inches, thigh 24 inches, and that his weight was only 180 lbs. It was certainly very careless of Sandow ( or his publisher) to allow Dr. Sargeant's measurements of Sandow to appear in the same volume with Sandow's own claims regarding the girth of the various parts of the body.

After an amateur lifter has spent six months or a year at handling dumbbells he will realize that quality counts for more than quantity in muscle. It is perfectly possible for a man to develop a 16-inch upper arm by years of application to light exercises, but a 16-inch arm thus developed is rarely very strong, the muscles being "puffy." I have frequently seen men with upper arms measuring 15 or 16 inches, with muscles almost as hard as wood, who were utterly unable to push above t heir head with one arm a 75-lb. dumbbell; a feat which would be easy for any boy with a 12-inch upper arm who had three months' training at lifting.

Returning to the question of a professional's measurements, I would like to point out the fact that a man's measurements always have a certain relation to his bodily weight. For instance, a man standing 5 feet 9 inches and weighing 154 lbs. would hardly be able to show a 15-inch upper arm, 42-inch chest and 24-inch thigh. If he had such measurements he would weight at least 180 lbs. , and yet there are many professionals who stand 5 feet 6 inches and less and weigh under 150 lbs. and still boldly claim a 16-inch biceps and 48-inch chest, etc. I have examined the measurements of several hundred amateur and professional lifters and find that they average about 42-inch chest, 15-inch upper arm and 23-inch thigh. I know one or two professionals who are capable of wonderful feats of strength, whose chests measure less than 40 inches, and whose biceps measure less than 14 inches; and on the other hand there are undoubtedly a couple of dozen professional athletes, both lifters and Greco-Roman wrestlers, who have normal chests larger than 46 inches, upper arms considerably over 16 inches, and other measurements in proportion. Zbyszco, the Polish wrestler (now in this country), has a 50-inch normal chest and 20-inch upper arm, by Zybszco is a man of naturally fleshy build.

There are other men who are decidedly muscular in appearance who show measurements almost as large as Zybszco's. Peter Kryhloff, the Russian wrestler, who hold the record for "muscling out" bells, has a simply magnificent muscular arm measuring 18 1/2 inches. To name a mane more familiar to American readers I will say that George Hackenschmidt's upper arm measures 17 3/4 inches, his normal chest 44 inches, expanded chest 49, his waist 34, his thighs 26 3/4. These measurements were taken when Hackenschmidt was in hard training and did not carry any superfluous flesh. Arthur Saxon states that his chest measures 46 inches normal, his upper arm 17 inches, and anybody who has seen Saxon will readily credit his claims. Saxon looks far bigger than those lifters who say they have 19-inch biceps and 50-inch chests. He seems to be as honest about his measurements as he is about his lifts.

John Marx is a tremendously large man and very muscular in appearance. Marx weighs 235 lbs., stands 5 feet 10 1/2 inches, has an 18 1/2-inch upper arm, 47-inch normal chest, 26-inch thigh, and his neck measurement is 20 inches.

Steinbach, the recognized champion lifter, is another very large and powerful man, but is not muscular in appearance. His arms and legs are apparently smooth and the muscles do not stand out in knots. Steinbach stands about 5 feet 10 1/2 inches, weighs 245 lbs., has a 46-inch chest, 17 1/2-inch upper arm, 15-inch forearm, 27 1/2-inch thigh. It does not follow because a man can show the biggest measurements that he can lift more than a man who shows less development. For instance, Steinbach's records are very much better than the records of William Tuerk, who during the 10 years from 1890 to 1900 was considered the strongest man in the world. Tuerk has a chest 1 inch larger, upper arm 1 1/2 inches larger than Steinbach, and yet Steinbach beat Tuerk's best lifts by over 20 lbs. Apollon, the famous French lifter, had a chest of 52 inches, and upper arm 21 inches. His lifts do not compare with Steinbach's.

There are a number of lifters who are first class in one-arm lifting, and are noticeable for the fact that their arm and leg measurements are much better than their chest measurements. For instance, Schneidereidt, the former record-holder in the one-arm snatch ( 199 lbs.) has an upper arm measuring 17 inches, thigh almost 26 inches, and yet his chest measures only 41 inches. Schneidereidt could hold his own with almost any lifter in the world in the "snatch" and "swing" lifts, but has not the bodily weight to make records in two-hand lifting. In one of the years he competed for the championship of Germany he raised only 220 lbs. in the two-arm press (a pure strength test), which is almost 100 lbs. under the World's Record.

George Lurich, who is a lifter and wrestler renowned for his agility, presents just the opposite characteristic from Schneidereidt. Lurich has a very large chest, but there is nothing remarkable about his arm and leg measurements. Lurich's normal chest is 46 inches, while his upper arm is less that 16, and his thigh only 23 1/4 inches. Yet Lurich has raised more in the one-arm jerk from the shoulder to above the head than any other man, and at the same time he is good at two-hand lifting, having raised over 330 lbs. in the two-arm jerk; which is fine for a 190-lb. man.

Witzelsberger, of Vienna, who holds the record for the one-arm press in military position (another pure strength lift), weighs 225 lbs., has a 45-inch chest and a 16 1/2 inch upper arm. Witzelsberger's arm is not as large as Schneidereidt's, and yet he can raise far more than Schneidereidt in those lifts in which strength is the greatest factor.

You will often notice that when a newspaper reporter gives an account of the "act" of some new strong man he generally winds up by giving the strong man's measurements. He usually lays particular stress on the fact that the strong man's chest measures 15 or 18 inches more than his waist. There are a number of writers on athletics who seem to think that it is an example of admirable proportions in a well-built man if there is a great difference in the chest and waist measurements. In the strongest men the difference between the normal chest and waist measurements is rarely more than 8 or 9 inches.

Sandow used to state (in his theatre programs) that his normal chest was 48 and his waist was 30, but as a matter of fact his chest was 44 inches and his waist was 32 inches, which is really a remarkable difference. It is an established fact that if a man's waist is more than 12 inches smaller than his chest he is improperly developed in the waist region. No man can perform any considerable feats of strength unless he has a very square-built, powerful waist. It is not a sign of strength, or even of beauty to have a chest very much larger than the waist. In a man who stands 5 feet 6 inches, or less, in height a difference of 7 inches is about correct, while in a 6-footer the difference can be as great as 9 inches without his seeming out of proportion. There are plenty of professional strong men and lifters who have waists that are only a trifle smaller than their chest. Louis Cyr was probably much larger at the waist than he was in the chest region. Cyr was an extremely fleshy man, and yet Cyr could perform feats of genuine strength which would make the average "cabinet poser" faint with despair if he was called upon to equal them.

In this chapter it is perhaps appropriate to remark that a man's bony structure has considerable influence upon his measurements and upon his strength. A man who has large bones will, as a general rule, be able to support a much heavier muscular development than a man who has small bones, although the man with large bonds will never appear to be as beautifully developed as the small-boned man, as the latter gains in appearance owing to the small size of his joints, especially at the wrists and ankles. A man whose bones in the forearm and calf of the leg show a marked curve is always able to attain a wonderful development in those parts of the body, and a man with these characteristics generally has a large wrist and ankle measurements.

A man who has a well-developed back generally can show a large chest measurement. In fact, the easiest way to increase the measurement of the chest is to specialize on exercises and lifts that will develop and broaden the upper back. Most men who have rowed to any extent are able to show good chest measurements. William Blaikie, the author of "How to Get Strong," devoted almost a chapter of his book to telling how rowing made a man round-shouldered and tended to cramp his chest. I believe that Blaikie was entirely wrong in his opinion. I know a number of first-class amateur oarsmen, and they are all remarkably straight and "well-set-up" men. Most of them have broad shoulders and fine chests. The many hours they have spent at "sculling" or sweep-rowing have developed these muscles, when well-developed, have a tendency to hold the shoulders in the proper position and to distend the ribs.

A man's appearance when stripped is greatly influenced by the shape and size of his head. A man who possesses a large head never appears as muscular as a man who has a small, shapely, well-set head. Sandow had a beautifully-shaped head and appeared tremendously muscular, when as a matter of fact, his measurements were much smaller than many men who had larger heads than his. I once saw a little sketch which is frequently used by artists in teaching their pupils the rules of bodily proportion. It was an outline of a figure with one body and two heads, and if you covered the outline of the smaller head with your thumb you saw a dimpled baby, but if you covered the outline of the larger head, so that only the smaller head was seen, you had a perfect Hercules.

Not long ago I was walking past a certain variety theatre in Philadelphia and noticed the pictures of a man who was doing a "strong-man" act. His muscular development appeared wonderful in this photographs. He looked as though he had a 45-inch chest and 17-inch upper arm, but when seeing the man personally I found that he had a very small head, which exaggerated the size of his chest and shoulders; and as a matter of fact his chest was only about 40 inches, while his upper arm was certainly not more than 14 1/2 inches. The reader should carefully read the remarks at the beginning of Chapter XIV regarding the effect of man's appearance on his ability as a salary-earner in the strong-man line.

Aspiring young athletes will often be discouraged when they hear that some famous lifter or strong man can show a chest expansion of 10 to 15 inches, and it may be some comfort to them to note that very few of the greatest lifters show a genuine chest expansion of more than 5 inches. The genuine chest expansion is the difference between the measurement of a man's chest when held in a perfectly natural position and the measurement when the chest is distended by filling the lungs with air. Those professional strong men and "cabinet posers" who rely mostly on their appearance to create an impression on the audience will always give the difference between their contracted chest measurement and the measurement of the chest when expanded, both by lifting the lungs and by spreading the back muscles. When the first measurements are taken the strong man will flatten his chest, round his shoulders and let his muscles be perfectly flaccid, and of course, he expels as much air as possible from his lungs. In this way he is able to show a measurement of possibly 3 or 4 inches less than the normal chest measurement. When he has the second measurement taken he will inhale as much air as possible, and at the same time raise the shoulders, spread them as far apart as he can, and then flex and harden the immense muscles which lie on the upper back just below the shoulders.

I have known men to be able to show an increase of 6 or 8 inches over their normal chest expansion when they assume this position, but the reader should fully understand that this is a muscular expansion and not lung expansion. I admit that there are men who could show a difference of 10 to 12 inches between their contracted chest and muscularly expanded chest measurements, but the same men cannot show a genuine chest expansion of more than 3 or 4 inches. So much has been written lately about chest expansion and the lung power that there are many men who believe they cannot be strong unless they can show an expansion of 6 to 8 inches, and I can perhaps comfort such men by telling them that if they have a genuine expansion of 3 to 4 inches they can rest assured that they are about the average in this respect.

PHOTOGRAPHS OF STRONG MEN. Now that I have explained the way in which the average professional will exaggerate his measurements, it is appropriate to make a few remarks about the photographs which are published by some of the leading strong men. In Chapter XIV, I describe "cabinet posing" and state that the effect of the lighting of the cabinet is to exaggerated a man's development to a great extent. Some professionals have their pictures taken while in the "cabinet." This gives them the appearance of having a wonderful development.

I have been informed that one or two very famous "living statues," so some of these lifters call themselves, do not take the trouble of posing in a cabinet, but before they have their photographs taken they artfully exaggerate their development by the use of burnt cork in the hollows which are formed when the muscles are powerfully flexed. The burnt cork apparently deepens the shadows and consequently makes the muscles stand out prominently in the finished photograph. A still easier method is for the athlete to depend entirely on the photographer for his development. After the picture is taken the photographer will simply go over the negative and deepen all the shadows, and in the finished photograph the result is much the same as though the athlete had posed in a cabinet, or used burnt cork. When this last method is resorted to it is wise to be careful and pick out a photographer who has some idea of human anatomy. I have seen photographs of "strong men" which have been retouched by the photographer in such a way as to give the strong man muscles of a shape not generally met within a normal human being, and the result was truly fearful and wonderful.

Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »

THE TRUTH ABOUT WEIGHTLIFTING - (circa 1911) - Chapters 7 & 8 - By Alan Calvert

Originally posted on NaturalStrength.com on 28 December 2006

Chapter 7

I have been engaged in manufacturing heavy dumb-bells for a number of years, and in all that time the only genuine competitions in weight-lifting that I have witnessed have been those which I promoted myself. I have from time to time, heard of competitions between weight lifters, and I believe that at one or two physical culture exhibitions there were prizes offered for weight- lifting, but at these exhibitions the lifts seemed to be how many times a man could raise a 100-pound bell from the floor to arms' length above the head, and similar feats, which can hardly be claimed as genuine weight-lifting.

Apparently, in this country, the only idea they have regarding lifting weights is to take a dumbbell in one hand and see how many times each competitor can push it above the head. This is an endurance feat pure and simple. Over in Ireland there is a middle-aged man who puts up a 10-pound dumbbell several thousand times, but this is not weight-lifting. In a contest between weight-lifters the object should be to show how much each man can raise in the various standard lifts, and the total weight lifted should decide the result. When there is a high jumping contest between two athletes the object is to see which one of the jumpers can clear the greatest height. Just imagine a jumping contest where the bar was placed at 4 feet and the prize was given to the jumper who cleared that height the greatest number of times, and you will have a parallel to some people's idea of lifting weights.

I am very sorry to say that most American professional lifters avoid competitions as they do prison. They are very prolific with challenges and their greatest ambition is to get some sporting editor to publish their challenges broadcast; but when it comes down to making a match they always want to impose some impossible condition, which no other weight-lifter will accept.

The prevalent method is to issue a challenge to any man in the world to lift weights. The challenger states that he will perform 3 or 4 feats of this own selection and his opponent can select the same number of feats and each lifter must perform all his own, and all the other lifter's feats and the man who has lifted the greatest total wins. Imagine a man who makes a specialty in back-lifting and harness-lifting competing under these terms with a man who has confined himself entirely to dumbbell and bar-bell lifting. A man who is totally unfamiliar with harness-lifting would probably fail to raise 2,000 pounds in his first attempt, and at back-lifting, and what is known as hip-lifting, he would probably "show" very poorly. The dumbbell lifter might beat his opponent in each of 4 standard dumbbell lifts by about 50 pounds, which would give him an advantage of 200 pounds, but a skilled back-lifter would probably be able to outdo by 800 or 1,000 pounds the first efforts at the back lift by the dumbbell lifter and thus wipe out all the advantage gained in the dumbbell lifter's feats.

Dumbbell lifting is one sport; back-lifting is another, and they should be kept entirely distinct and separate. Back-lifting and harness-lifting require the use of a lot of cumbersome and unhandy apparatus and there is such a great opportunity of faking, that is almost impossible for even a good judge to tell when a harness lift is being performed correctly. The suspicious point about back-lifting "contests" is that each competitor will never use anything except his own specially-prepared apparatus, and half the time the back-lifters want to "ring in" feats which are not lifts at all, but are really supporting feats. In the dumbbell contests, on the other hand, the apparatus used should be all uniform and of standard style. Whenever it is possible all the lifter should be compelled to use the same dumbbells, thus placing every lifter on absolutely equal footing regarding apparatus.

I hope to see the time within the next few years when this country will see regular competitions in weight-lifting under a standard set of rules. In track and field athletics we have a certain number of standard events; 100 yards dash, quarter-mile run, half-mile run, mile run, running high jump, putting the shot, etc., and all these events are governed by a set of hard and fast rules, to which all competitors must conform, and, under the present admirable ruling the A. A. U., no man can be credited with a record unless it is made in competition.

I believe that weight-lifting contests with dumb-bells will become a very popular indoor sport among athletic clubs just as soon as we have sensible competitions. Nowadays every professional, and I regret to say, many amateurs, have favorite feats of strength of their own and frequently these feats have never been seen, or even heard of, by other lifters. It is no fair test of strength to set a man to perform a feat with which he is entirely unfamiliar. No man can exert his full strength under such conditions. As long as there are certain standard lifts they ought to be practiced, and only in this way can we develop good lifters. If a man knows that he can practice 6 or 8 different lifts and that if he enters a competition the events will be picked from among these 8 lifts, he will always be able to train properly and do himself justice in competition.

In case the reader thinks I am too severe on American professionals, let me ask if he can remember any dumbbell lifting contests between any of our lifters who enjoy great reputations, but who never lift in competitions with each other.

* * * * *

Chapter 8

WHO IS THE STRONGEST MAN IN THE WORLD?

If you ask the average man the above question, the chances are 99 out of 100, that he will reply, "Eugene Sandow." This shows the power of advertising. Sandow is certainly one of the most beautifully-built men who ever lived, and unquestionably the best advertised of all professional "strong men." The reader may be surprised to learn that Sandow is not now, and never was, the strongest man in the world. He never held but one record in lifting weights. This record was 271 pounds in the "bent-press," and that record has since been broken by many other professional lifters. Sandow never claimed high records in two-hand lifts, and the two-hand lifts are the real test of a man's strength.

The greatest part of Sandow's reputation was made on his "supporting-feats," which, like his dumbbell lifts, have been far surpassed by several members of the younger generation of lifters. There are several dozen amateurs in Germany who can lift just as much as Sandow ever could in those lifts which call a man's strength into play, giving an attractive exhibition of weight-lifting and feats of strength than any other stage performer. Even his bitterest rivals, who have only contempt for his lifting powers, are perfectly ready to give him credit as the greatest "show-man" in the business.

To get back to our subject: "Who is the strongest man in the world?" If you write to the leading sporting paper in this country and ask, you will be told that Louis Cyr is the man. They are evidently not aware of the fact that Cyr died two or three years ago. Cyr was unusually strong in his prime; he was one of the strongest individuals of the last 100 years, and certainly America has never produced another professional strong man who could compare with Cyr in real power. Men who knew Cyr, have told me that his strength was almost incalculable. His one-hand press of 273 1/4 pounds and his dead-weight lift of 1,897 pounds (using hands alone) and his back-lift of 4,300 pounds proved him to have been almost twice as strong as the average professional lifter. But if we hunt the records of Cyr's best performance in the two-hand dumbbell lift, we find it is 350 pounds, and, as was pointed out before, a number of European lifters have excelled this record.

In Europe, back-lifting and dead-weight lifting, such as Cyr specialized in, is not very popular. It certainly seems that if some of the European dumbbell lifters took up back-lifting, they would probably excel Cyr's record. C. A. Samson, an Alsatian professional, lifted 4,000 pounds in a harness lift, but was very poor at dumbbell lifting. John Marx, of Luxemburg, Germany, lifted considerably over 4,000 pounds in harness, but has never made any remarkable dumbbell lifts, although he is supposed to be capable of pressing 220 pounds with the right arm and pressing 300 pounds with both arms.

In Europe, where they understand such things, the man who holds the records in the two-hand dumbbell lifts is universally acclaimed as the strongest man in the world, and during the last four years this honor has been unanimously given to Joseph Steinbach, of Vienna, who hold the official record in the two-hand jerk with 390 pounds, and in the two-hand press with 328 3/4 pounds. Only a man who has lifted dumbbells can realize the terrific strength necessary to raise these weights over the head. In the two-hand press very little skill is necessary, the bell being forced up by sheer strength. Steinbach's press is a feat full equal to lifting eighteen or nineteen hundred pound dead-weight from the floor with hands alone.

As stated in another part of this book, every professional strong man in American seems to deems it his duty to proclaim himself the strongest man in the world, and, therefore, the amateur should be very cautious about accepting statements of any lifter regarding his performances. This applies whether the lifter makes the statements orally, or whether he publishers them in a book. The writer has furnished dumbbells for many prominent American professional lifters and he can assure the reader that there are many men to-day who are using hollow bells weighing less than 100 pounds and at the same time advertising that these bells weight anywhere from 300 to 400 pounds. When the public becomes acquainted with the standard performances in the various lifts and is able to judge for itself what is a possible lift and what is an impossible one, it will be able to decide which lifter deserves the real credit. No man should be allowed to claim the title of champion because he has performed some new "supporting feat." Nine out of ten of these supporting feats are extremely simple, and easy to perform, and they are not any measure of a man's muscular power.

Arthur Saxon, the eldest of the Saxon Trio, has a great many followers who assert that he is the strongest man in the world, and they back up their statements regarding Saxon's superiority by pointing to the fact that he holds the record in the one-hand press, and is supposed to be capable of breaking the existing record in the one-hand snatch. As was pointed out before, skill and agility are great factors in one-hand lifting; whereas, in two-hand bar-bell lifting, especially when the bar-bell is pressed aloft, strength is the dominant factor. When a man gets a heavy bar-bell of 250 pounds, or more, to his chest, no tricks, skill or quickness in movement will enable him to get the bell aloft in the two-hand "press." He simply has to have the strength to push the bell aloft.

The most important sets of muscles called into play are the small of the back, the shoulders and the back of the upper arms (triceps). Saxon has never claimed that he was able to push aloft in the two-hand press more than 275 pounds, and in the two-hand jerk his best record is around 350 pounds. There are four amateurs and two professionals in the city of Vienna, three amateurs in Germany and one professional in Sweden, who could take Saxon's measure in those lifts which require pure strength. If a contest could be arranged in which the one-hand bent-press was included, Saxon might be able to win, but if it was confined to the standard lifts, even his skill in the one-hand "snatch" and "swing" would not help him, because the heavy continental champions would get such a lead in the two-hand lifts that he would be unable to overcome it in the one-hand work.

The writer yields to no one in his admiration for Saxon as a dumbbell lifter. He considers Saxon supreme in the one-hand bent-press, and particularly gives him credit for the fact, that of all the professional lifters he alone gives what is known as a "straight show." Stage performers who have gone around the circuit with Saxon have told me that there is not the least question but that he lifts exactly what he claims. If Saxon was a larger and heavier man he might possibly gain the coveted title, but the fact that he weighs only 200 pounds places him at a disadvantage in a contest where strength plays an important part. Saxon possesses muscular strength in abundance, but he has not the supreme power for the two-hand dumbbell work. This may seem like a very odd statement to the reader, but if he will in Chapter XII about the difference between strength and power he may understand what I mean by the foregoing statement.

John Marx, whom we referred to previously, is a back-lifter, and is another man who has an international reputation for terrific strength. Marx is a big-framed man, weighing about 235 pounds. He has never gone in very much for dumbbell lifting, but he always keeps a few dumbbells around. His bells have such enormously thick handles that other lifters are unable to manage them, and so it is hard to say exactly what Marx could do if he trained for dumbbell lifting, or to gauge how much he lifts. The best French and German authorities on weight-lifting give Marx credit for being the best back-lifter in the world today. We deal with some of Marx's performances in this line in Chapter IV, under the head of Harness-lifting. Marx holds the championship in one other feat of strength, which is quite popular in Europe, and that is the breaking of horseshoes. So far Marx has broken every horseshoe that has been offered him. Frequently he has stopped at famous athletic clubs and broken horseshoes which have defied the efforts of the strongest local members of the clubs. This is a feat which require tremendous strength in the arms and shoulders, and Marx has built up a big reputation by his ability in this line.

Carl Swaboda , of Vienna, cannot be left out of the count of the strongest men. He is the only man who has yet lifted a bar-bell of 400 pounds above his head in the two-hand jerk. To be sure, he was barred from the record because of the irregular way in which he brought the bell from the ground to the chest; but the fact remains that he is the only man who succeeded in taking a 400-pound bar-bell in from the ground to above the head. In this connection we must warn the reader against being fooled by the statements that Saxon has lifted 448 pounds above the head with two hands. The way Saxon did it was to take a 336-pound bar-bell, press it aloft in his right arm by means of a bent-press, and then balance the bell above the head and lean down and pick up with his left arm a 112-pound dumbbell and bring it alongside the bar-bell. So, we see, that Saxon's feat was not a genuine lift. It was a combination of a lift and "supporting feat."

To return to Carl Swoboda, we are unable to find any record of his two-hand press. I have never heard of his attempting this lift in a public trial, and I suppose that this is the reason that the best European authorities give Steinbach the credit for being the stronger man. Carl Swoboda had the advantage of nearly 50 pounds in body weight over Steinbach, and yet was only able to raise 10 pounds more in the two-hand jerk. Steinbach, therefore, must be the stronger man in proportion to his own weight.

Grafl, the present amateur champion lifter of the world, is another man with strong claims to the title of the strongest man. Grafl is a giant of 6 feet 4 inches, who weighs about 260 pounds, and has won the European championship in the last 3 years without being pushed by the nearest competitor. Grafl has only been lifting for half a dozen years, but it frequently happens that a man does not reach his very best till he has been lifting for a dozen years, so, possibly, we can look to Grafl to break all existing two-hand records in the near future.

Athletes from the southeastern part of Europe all claim that Tofalos, the Greek lifter, is the most powerful man in the world, but unfortunately his records in past performance will not bear them out. It is true that Tofalos won the weight-lifting events the last time the Olympic games were held in Athens, but it must be remembered that Steinbach was disqualified in those games on suspicion of being a professional. Before he left the arena on that occasion Steinbach tossed to his shoulder and then pressed aloft with two hands a dumb-bell which Tofalos was unable to bring even as high as the shoulders. A year or two after this Tofalos took a journey to Vienna with the intention of competing in a weight-lifting tournament in that city, but after he arrived he refused to compete because the tournament was held in a theatre; his claim being that he could only do himself justice when lifting out of doors. Austrian enthusiasts claim that Tofalos backed out after he took one look at Grafl, but his many have been only newspaper talk. Still the fact remains that Tofalos refused to compete under conditions that were customary in Vienna.

Several months ago a light-weight Greek lifter dropped into my salesrooms in Philadelphia and performed for me a few striking feats of strength. In the course of conversation he referred to Tofalos and made the astounding statement that Tofalos could push 400 lbs. above the head with one hand. This is an example of how even a good professional lifter is frequently very badly posted regarding the best performances in his own line of athletics. In the say way a very strong young German recently called at my salesrooms and after making a few lifts and examining the dumbbells on exhibition he commenced talking about the famous John Marx. This German and Marx both come from the town of Luxemburg, Germany, and my caller was totally unable to see for a minute that there was any other lifter in a class with Marx. He even claimed that Marx could raised a 500-lb. bar-bell above the head in the two-hand jerk. In fact, I have found a number of times that even first-class professionals are ignorant regarding the best performances in weight-lifting. It seems that they do not care read about any other man's work except their own, but it may be that they are very easy to deceive. It is often said that a man who habitually falsifies his statements is very easy to take in with an untruth. It certainly seems that the men who exaggerate their own statements regarding lifting are the quickest to place credence in the exaggerated statements of others.

The main point which I wish to make in this chapter is that there is no one man who stands head and shoulders above all other men in point of strength. It is the apparent aim of professional lifters, especially in this country, to make the general public believe that they are a peculiar class of men, possessed of almost superhuman power, and that it is foolish for any ordinary person think of comparing his strength with the strength of a professional "strong man." Anybody who has followed athletic records (and most young Americans have) knows that in running, jumping, etc., several performers will share, or come very close to equaling the best records. For instance, in high jumping the amateur record is 6 ft. 5 3/4 in., and over. In running, 100 yards, Duffy is credited with a record of 9 3/5 seconds, but there are half dozen men with 9 4/5 marks, and probably a hundred who have covered the distance in 10 seconds. In putting the shot and throwing the hammer, a foot or two, or perhaps in some cases a few inches, will separate the records of three or four best contestants in these lines.

Now, it is exactly the same in weight-lifting; what one has done another can do, or else come pretty near doing. I have shown that in the one-hand snatch, while the record is 205 lbs., there are a great number of men who have done over 190 lbs. In the two-hand jerk, while 402 lbs. is the best performance, another man has done 390, and three or four others have beaten 375 lbs. When any professional lifter makes a statement that he can lift hundreds of pounds more than any rival in dumbbell lifting you can put it down that that man is a liar.

Another point I want to make is that many of the lifting records are held by amateurs. Carl Swaboda, of Vienna, is an amateur. Wetzelsberger, who holds the record in the one-arm press in military position; Vasseur, holder of the one-arm snatch record, are also amateurs, and, in fact, the only professionals who hold records in the standards lifts are Jean Francois, hold of the record in the one-arm swing, and George Lurich, who holds the record in the one-arm jerk.

I recognize fully that a man must be gifted to a certain extent with natural size and strength in order to become a champion in the strength game. A man who stands 5 ft. 6 in., and only 150 or 160 lbs., can make himself enormously strong, but he cannot ever hope to hold world's records in dumbbell lifting. He may hold records in his class, but when it comes to total weight lifted he will have to bow to the big man. I do not believe that any man weighing less than 225 lbs. should be considered for a minute in a discussion as to who is the strongest man in the world.

There is an old saying that there is always a bigger fish in the sea than ever was caught, and it is very probable that somewhere on this earth there is a man who is even stronger than Cyr, Steinbach, Saxon, or any of the present-day Hercules. I have seen men in this country who, if they trained properly with heavy dumbbells, in a couple of years' time could develop themselves into muscular giants. Americans have a knack of excelling in athletic sports, and I believe when weight-lifting becomes a popular sport we will, in the course of two or three years, produce men who will be able to compete on equal terms with the European champions of the present day.

The reader will probably be surprised that I have not considered any American claimants for the title of the strongest man of the world, and in explanation I would say, at present I do not believe that we have an absolutely first-class "strong man' in this country. As I have pointed out in Chapter V, the true test of strength is the amount of weight a man can lift. Most of the professional strong men in this country have built up their reputation simply on "supporting feats." There are two or three men, for instance, who claim to hold a couple of tons while in the bridge position. I do not take the least stock in their claims, for , as I know these men habitually exaggerate the weight of the dumbbells they use, I think they pursue the same course in regard to the amount of weight they advertise in their supporting feats.

In another part of this book I have described the German system of registering records, and if there are any American lifters who feel that they have a chance to displace the existing records in lifting it should not be hard to arrange matters so as to give them a chance to make good on their claims. Personally, nobody would be more delighted than the writer if an American lifter was to come forward and break all the world's records.

I would at any time gladly pay $100.00 to see an American lifter raise from his shoulder to arms' length above the head with the right arm a 300-lb. bar-bell, or to see any American lifter raise from the ground to arms' length above the head a bar-bell weighing 400 lbs. Any aspiring young strong man who think they can perform either of these feats can take a chance any time they are in Philadelphia by calling at my factory, and I can assure such lifters that they will receive absolutely fair treatment, and that they can have the pick of the kind of bells they want to use, and that if they succeed in performing either of the above feats I will not only hand over the money, but will also do the utmost in my power to assist them to establish their claim for American records in these feats. I feel that my money is pretty safe for some years to come.

World's Champion weight-lifters are not developed in a day; in Europe weight-lifting has been by thousands of men during the last 20 years, and Europe has produced only one man who could lift 300 lbs. above the head with one arm, and one other man who lifted 400 lbs. above the head with both arms. In America weight-lifting is in its infancy. We have here the raw material to make good lifters, but the material has not yet been developed. It would be just as reasonable to expect the United States to produce five absolutely first-class lifters in the next three years as it would be to expect Germany to produce in the same time a baseball team of defeating the World's Champion Philadelphia Athletics.

Cincinnati has a man by the name of Holtgreve who is immensely powerful, and this man is reported to be equally good at dumbbell lifting and back-lifting. In Montreal there is a young man by the name of Hector Decarie who is probably one of the best dumbbell lifters in America. I hope that some time in the near future both of these men will lift for records under the European regulations, and thus create some standard American records, so that we can know how our best lifters compare with the European Champions.

Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »

MYTHS, 1/2 TRUTHS AND LIES - By Will Ellinger

I can't help but feel the need to vent some frustration and give some honest cold hard facts about the whole fitness industry. While I am certainly not the first (and I am sure I won't be the last) to be disgusted by the garbage being spewed and all the misinformation being given. In my view it is getting worse and spreading to the population of athletes which are closest to me.

It is nothing new for a bunch of morons to spread false information about lifting and training, which goes back to the 1st athletes who started working out to improve their athletic performance. From what I have been seeing, it is now a very common thing for every 'johnny come lately' fitness expert to target athletes. This too is not a brand new trend. I guess it just never bothered me as much before because I felt that the athletes who compete in the sports where you "need to train or you lose" could see through the crap. You see it makes no difference to me how 'athletes' in other activities train. I know that 99.9% of them could never train on a real program requiring extreme effort. I don't mean to insult anybody but it is just how it is. Not everyone can be a wrestler. Nor can everyone stand the 'crushing pressure' of heavy squats, and that is fine by me. The problem for me is the ever increasing population of gurus spreading the newest, latest and best way to train.

Let me go over a few that I have heard lately. Wrestlers never need to lift heavy, they just need to lift their opponent, so body weight is fine. Well, without getting too technical, I guess their opponent is a sack of s*#t with no muscles of his own that you will need to fight against? Athletes don't need to use strict form when lifting because they will not be in perfect position when in competition. Yes that is great, hitting the targeted muscles through a proper range while strengthening connective tissues and preventing injuries HA! I might ask why do wrestlers spend all that time drilling technique anyway? Just go dive right in on a leg, head down body extended, it's all good. Lets not forget the one legged opposite hand dumbbell curls, and snatches, kettle-bell only training, circuits on a machine, one weight giant compound sets, and oh yea don't leave out hot yoga. Yes, we have uncovered the secret. Matter of fact the last time I talked to Coach Brands at Iowa, that is exactly what he told me. The Hawkeyes have won 50 something straight because of their hot yoga training.

Maybe it's the economy, or the ability to make a quick buck that has brought these experts into the athletic training field? I do have to say that it is amazing how fast they were able to change the laws of physiology. Most of them have never trained hard a day in their lives. Neither have they ever competed in any competition of any significance in their lives. But after taking a minimum 1 weekend course they can tell you how to train, amazing!

What is also really aggravating me is the amount of time I spend trying to explain proper training to coaches, parents and prospective athletes. Please don't take this the wrong way. I love nothing more than teaching athletes and talking about training. It is the ones who 'already have been taught' that is the problem. In other words, I find myself in a debate about the merits of proper training! Breaking all their bad lifting habits and techniques is more of a challenge than if they hadn't done anything at all. When I tell them that they have been lifting improperly, ineffectively and in an unsafe manner and we need to 'start from the beginning, it doesn't go over very well. Some, it seems, get insulted or discouraged. Maybe they feel burned that their coach/trainer or guru has basically wasted their time? To me it reminds me of the saying, "old habits are hard to kill." You have an athlete or group of athletes going to the gym to 'workout' and it is nothing more than a social event with no hard work taking place. Well, it is a bit of a shock for most when they get into a real program and all the lifts take effort. They go from maybe having a conversation while doing some sissy weight seated one arm concentration curls, to breathing hard under heavy weight, muscles trembling while squatting.

So let's take a look at the MYTHS. From the beginning Athletes where told- NOT TO LIFT WEIGHTS!!!This today seems almost too stupid to be true but believe me it is. The athletes were told they would "Get muscle bound" become slow, lose flexibility, and it would HURT their performance. Certain exercises were bad for you. For example, you may still hear "Squatting is bad for your knees" which could not be further from the truth. Lifting will stunt your growth is another stupid statement that you may have heard. There are others, like "he's too little, he's too old, he's too frail and he's too dumb." Well as in many cases if you do things wrong, the risks of getting hurt or injured increase. Like most activities you need to be taught how to do it. Then another very important element kicks in. That is the proper guidance through a good program. This is yet another area where the 'gurus' can't help you because you cannot learn this from a text book or weekend course.

Please do not only take my word for it. Let me here give you the words of PAUL ANDERSON. He is considered to be the strongest man in recorded history. A fact which I don't think anyone could debate after studying his lifting records? (some of them have not been attempted, more or less broken in 50 years) Mr. Anderson received a Scholarship to play football which would attest to him being at least a decent athlete coming out of high school. He was 240lbs. and could run a 11.5 100 yard dash. As a freshman he wanted to better his performance so he started weight training. Anderson winning the 1956 Olympic Gold Medal, the last American heavy weight to do so He was told by his coaches that "weight training was harmful to an athlete, and they would take away his scholarship if he continued this horrible thing." Well I guess through the grace of God he saw through this stupidity and continued on. What becomes interesting is that he found that at a body weight of 330+ he was now much faster and could jump higher than before. Does this help to shatter some of those myths? Let's look at what he had to say in his book WEIGHTS & SPORTS. "Through the years our coaches' attitudes have progressed to a greater knowledge of weights in athletics. Unfortunately, along with the acceptance of weights there have been setbacks because of misinformation. Numbers of people have made themselves 'experts' and immediately started offering advice to our coaches concerning weight training for their athletes." Again, please read and fully understand what he wrote about this subject many years ago! It is miles worse now. They have programs, classes, online courses you name it, where you too can become an 'expert'. I have first hand experience with some of these programs and trainers. I can tell you that many people have been granted certifications to instruct others on working out; With NO prior meaningful experience that would translate into helping to reach this distinction.

I will end here with these few comments. If you find yourself at the end of the season with a strong hunger to improve for next year, you owe it to yourself to seek out the best programs that will help you to reach your goals. Don't be fooled and become a victim to one of these clowns who have nothing to offer. Ask questions! Who will I be training with? What background does he have? Has he competed/coached the sport or sports I compete in? For how long, on what level and with what success? On what program will I train? Where will I be training and how many days a week? What is the duration of the session as well as the program? Is it cost effective? This should give you a good start and I hope it will help all of you to make better choices when it comes to your career.

Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »

THE TRUTH ABOUT WEIGHTLIFTING - (circa 1911) - Chapter 6 - By Alan Calvert

A good many years ago no "strong-man act" was considered complete unless the performer did a certain amount of chain breaking, card tearing, etc, but these tricks have gradually lost their popularity, because the public has become very skeptical regarding them.

COIN BREAKING. I suppose there have been, at various times, 30 or 40 strong men who claimed to be able to break with their thumbs and fore-fingers silver, or copper coins, the size of an American quarter or half-dollar. I have not seen this feat attempted for a great many years. A great many professional lifters have assured me that it is all a matter of sleight of hand. The performer goes through the operation known as "palming," and by some masterly sleight of hand, starts out with an unbroken coin, and after a few seconds' time, without apparent change of the position of his fingers, he shows the audience what is supposed to be the same coin broken in two parts.

There is a very well-known teacher of physical culture in New York City, who is noted for the strength of his hands and fingers, and this gentleman frankly admits that he is unable to perform the feat of breaking a coin. If the reader will put an ordinary silver quarter in a vise and attempt to break it by gripping the edge of the coin with a pair of pincers, he will get an idea of the simply fearful strength which would be necessary to bend a coin with the fingers.

There is a man in Europe who has the reputation of being the only man who ever succeeded in breaking a coin, and this is "Cyclops" Bienkowski, who is known from one end of Europe to the other as the "money breaker." "Cyclops" is mentioned in a previous chapter in connection with the one-hand press, and there is no question but that he is an enormously powerful man. Of the late years he has devoted most of his time to Greco-Roman wrestling, and when he enters a tournament there is always a special rule passed, to the effect that Bienkowski is prohibited from using certain grips; the strength of his hand and the force of his grip being so terrible that the other wrestlers refuse to compete if he is allowed to use the full strength of his hands in certain wrestling holds.

But, however, Bienkowski has never fully proved to the satisfaction of athletic authorities that he is able to break coins and, therefore, we have to consider the feat as never having been proved. There is one thing certain; if Bienkowski is unable to break coins there is no one else in the world who can.

CHAIN SNAPPING. It is the popular belief that in the feat of "chain-breaking" the chain is always "doctored" in some way. It has been proved in several cases that part of the chain was treated with acids, which impaired the strength of the chain. In other cases there was one lead link at the center of a chain, which was apparently all steel. In still other cases the simple expedient of filing a link almost through has been resorted to. I believe that it is utterly impossible to break a genuine chain, if the links are made of material 1/8-inch thick.

Other performers claim to break chains by the muscular expansion of the chest. Still others break them by pulling them apart with the hands. The suspicious part about chain-breaking is that the performer will never allow an outsider to test, or even to touch the chain. Sometimes a number of stage hands will go through an elaborate bluff of pulling on each end of a chain, which is subsequently broken by the performer; but an experienced observed will always be able to "call the bluff" by asking permission to test his strength by pulling on the chain.

Where one end of a chain is fixed to a hook in the door, and the performer is able to pull on the other end of the chain it is a different matter. There are many chains manufactured, and sold commercially, which are tested up to only 400 or 500 pounds, and any weight lifter who can manage 1,000 or 1,200 pounds in a dead-weight lift, could easily break a chain of this kind by pulling on one end of it, providing the other end was hooked to a ring bolt in the floor.

CARD TEARING. Novelists and writers on feats of strength sometimes try to prove the strength of their hero, by stating that he could tear a pack of cards into halves by the strength of his hands. Like all other feats of strength the merit of the feat depends a great deal on the way it is performed. If a man was to take on edge of a pack of playing cards between his thumbs and fore-fingers and rip the cards in half, it would be a wonderful feat of finger strength. To tear one pack of cards the way it is done on the stage would be easy for any amateur weight-lifter.

The way a professional tears a pack of cards is as follows: He places one end of the pack in the palm of his left hand and he grasps the bottom edge of the pack tightly with the base of the palm and the tips of his fingers. He grasps the top of the pack in the same manner with the right hand, except that the knuckles are pointed in the opposite direction. He then tears the pack by a turn of the wrists. When two or more packs are torn simultaneously, it is customary to rest the left hand on the knee in order to steady it, while the athlete holds the right arm rigidly straight and pushes downward with all his strength, and in this way rips the cards in half.

Many people have the idea that the trick in card-tearing lies in slipping the cards, so that only a few cards are torn at the outset; but, in contrary to general belief, the edges of the cards are usually kept flush, and they are all torn at one time. Any man who has trained for three months with heavy dumbbells should easily one pack of cards in this fashion. Any amateur lifter who has advanced to the point where he can lift a 150-pound bell above the head with one hand and lift 600 pounds dead weight from the floor, should easily tear two packs. Some professionals claim to tear three packs in a legitimate manner. There is one professional who claims to tear five packs, but I am willing to bet him a fair sum that he won't tear five packs of perfectly fresh cards, if I am allowed to purchase and furnish the cards.

As in all other branches of "strong acts" on the stage the element of trickery enters into card tearing. I am told that if you take a pack of first-class playing cards an bake them in an oven for a couple of hours, they come out of the oven in such a condition that they can be torn as easily as so much blotting paper; and several professional performers, who tear two or more packs of cards in their stage acts have admitted to me that they always baked their cards in that manner.

Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »

THE TRUTH ABOUT WEIGHTLIFTING - (circa 1911) - Chapter 5 - By Alan Calvert

When I was a boy I remember having owned a volume entitled “Magic,” and one of the chapters of this volume was called the “Magic of Strength.” This chapter described the marvelous feats performed by several athletes who lived in the Eighteenth Century. All these feats were tricks, and were not genuine tests of strength . I can remember very distinctly the old wood-cuts which illustrated this chapter, one of which showed a man standing on a high platform; around his waist was a belt and to this belt was tied one end of a rope, and on the other end of the rope was hanging a two-thousand-pound cannon. This feat was given as a sample of the different lifts performed by the Eighteenth Century athletes. As a matter of fact it was not a lift at all, but was really what is known as a "supporting feat," and it illustrates the natural strength which lies in a man's bony construction. The bones of the hips form a natural arch and this arch is capable of sustaining an immense amount of pressure, if the pressure is applied from outside the curve of this arch. This feat is used to the present day on the variety stage and generally creates a great impression on the audience. It seems like a wonderful for a man to stand upright and support a ton hanging from a rope which is tied around his waist; but almost any sturdily-built mechanic, or day laborer, could easily perform the feat.

Several years ago in New York City I saw an athlete, who has considerable fame as a back-lifter, raise from the ground a weight of 1,000 pounds 100 times in 75 seconds, and he did it by what is known as the hip lift; that is, he stood on a small platform above the weight, had a belt fastened around his waist and lifted and lowered the weight by alternately straightening and bending his legs at the knees.

Another attractive supporting feat is known as the bridge lift. The manner in which this feat is performed begins with the athlete supporting himself on his hands and feet. His body is faced upwards and the legs are bent at the knees and the arms are fully extended to the floor behind his body. A specially prepared board ( which is heavily padded on the under side) is then rested upon his knees and on the points of his shoulders. At right angles to this board, and resting upon it, is a long plank, and this plank are assembled the weights which the athlete has to support. The important point is, that the cross plank must be placed much nearer to the knees than to the shoulders, so that most of the strain is thrown upon the bones of the leg. I have seen a man support in this way twenty other men, total weight of over 3,000 pounds. Sandow, who introduced this feat in America, used to support three small horses. An athlete in Europe recently supported a small elephant in this manner. I have seen a comparatively slender woman, who certainly did not weigh over 140 pounds, support in the bridge lift a number of men and heavy iron dumbbells, who aggregate weight was nearly a ton. Recently two or three American strong men have introduced a variation in this feat by allowing an automobile to run across a long plank. One end of the plank is rested on the ground, the automobile runs up the plank from this end, crosses the man's body and as the plank tips, runs down and off the other end. In this way the athlete supports the weight for only a fraction of a second and it is not nearly as difficult to do this as to support a pair of horse for a couple of moments' time.

If the reader wishes to test for himself the remarkable strength of the bones of the lower leg, let him sit in an ordinary chair and put a 12-inch plank across the knees; sit well forward in the chair and put a cushion under the plank to act as a pad. You will find that you will be able to support the weight of seven or eight persons sitting on the plank without making any exertion, or feeling any strain on the legs.

I might mention that when the bridge feat is performed, the athlete always keeps his head toward the audience when he assumes the bridge position. This is not accident, but design. In the first place it prevents the audience from seeing that the cross plank is really above the knees, instead of over his chest, and in the second place it enables him to make a wonderful display of his triceps muscles. If a man stands with his arm hanging at the side, with the palm of the hand front, and then straightens his arm, he will feel the muscle on the back of the upper arm tighten; this is the triceps muscle referred to above. Now, if the reader will raise his arm backwards, still keeping it rigid, he will feel the triceps muscle tighten, more and more, until the tension becomes almost painful and the muscle stands out in knots. When the athlete assumes the bridge position his arms are, of course, rigid and drawn behind him and the triceps muscle stands out prominently even before the weight is put on the cross plank. A the weight is put in place the lifter will throw all the tension possible on the arm muscle, and the spectators, who see only the top of his head and shoulders and the back of his arm, notice that the triceps muscle is in a state or high flexion and naturally assume that the arms are doing a large part of the work. These things are only detail, but they show how a professional will work in order to create an impression.

Lifters sometimes gain great reputations by holding enormous weights at arm's length above the head. This is very much easier than lifting an equal amount of weight from the shoulder to arm's length. A man who can push up one hundred pounds should be able to support, on the straight arm, at least two hundred and fifty pounds.

An impressive feat of strength can be performed with two men and an light bar bell. Sometimes it is performed with an iron rod instead of a bar bell. One man stands at each end of the bar and holds it above his head. The lifter stands in between the two men, bends his knees until he can get beneath the bar with straight arms, and then, by straightening his legs, he can raise the whole weight from the ground. The strength of the legs and back raises the weight, and all the arms have to do is to support it. Any intelligent workman who handles bulky packages of goods, applies this same principle. When a stevedore has to up-end a large box, or crate, he never stands close to the object and attempts to move it by straightening his arms. He will, instead, stand about two feet from the crate and lean against it with perfectly straight arms and then, by throwing his weight against the crate and by pushing with his legs, he will be easily able to overturn it.

The same general principle of utilizing the strength of the back and legs is applied to almost all supporting feats. For instance, an even more striking variation of the feat just mentioned is to support the weight of two men and a bar-bell on one upraised arm. Thomas Inch first introduced this feat and supported 500 pounds in this manner. Back in the nineties Sandow used to carry a horse across the theatre stage in the following manner: A very heavy girth was fastened around the horse, and the horse was then hauled about six feet in the air by means of a block and tackle. Sandow would stand under the horse and grasp a specially prepared handle on a side of the girth. By leaning forward he would bring a large part of the horse's weight on his shoulders and the back of his neck. The tackle would then be released and Sandow would walk across the stage, carrying the horse with him. We copy the program in using the word "horse, " but as a matter of fact, the animal was only a good-sized pony weighing in the neighborhood of 600 pounds.

George Lurich, the noted Russian lifter, has made a specialty of carrying weights in this manner, his latest feat being to carry across the stage five men hanging from a ring, which he grasps in his up-raised right hand. He has also succeeded in carrying three men suspended from the middle finger of his upraised right hand.

Arthur Saxon, who was here two years ago with Ringling's Circus, introduced a novelty in the way of supporting feats. Instead of using the bridge feat he would lie flat on his back, raise a heavy bar-bell to arm's length and allow one man to sit on each end of the bar-bell; at the same time he would hold on a plank (which rested on the soles of his feet) as many as twelve or fifteen men. This feat is very much harder than the bridge lift. In the bridge lift almost all the strain is thrown on the bones of the leg from the knee to the ankle; whereas, in Saxon's feat, he not only had to keep the entire leg straight, but also had to balance the weight.

Rudolf Klar, a German amateur, who attempted to imitate Saxon, succeeded in holding twelve men in this manner, but when he attempted fifteen men, the weight came down on him, breaking both legs.

The wrestlers' bridge, where a man supports his whole body on the heels and crown of his head, is another well-known supporting feat. I have seen a man in this position hold a heavy bar-bell and four men; total of eight hundred pounds.

Another supporting feat which makes a hit is when a lifter assumes a horizontal position with his heels on the seat of one chair and back of his head on the seat of another chair and holds a few bar-bells or a number of people on his chest, abdomen and legs. When this feat is performed nine out of ten people in the audience will exclaim: "My, that man must have tremendously strong stomach muscles!" As a matter of fact the feat is a pure test of back and neck strength and the muscles of the chest and abdomen are hardly called into play.

Acrobatic teams generally conclude their acts by a display of pyramid work. The largest and strongest member of the troop will support on his shoulders, hips and outstretched arms, the remaining members of the troupe. This trick is not at all difficult; all that is necessary is to have the feet about fifteen inches apart and to concentrate all the attention upon preventing the legs from bending at the knees.

I have seen some powerful men take a few steps while carrying on their shoulders weights of 800 or 1,000 pounds, but invariably the athlete, instead of striding out in a natural manner, takes steps about 8 inches long, and shuffles along with straight legs. If he allowed his legs to bend at the knees he and the weight would come down in a heap.

To return to the book which I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, I recall two other feats that were mentioned. In one feat the athlete sat on an inclined plane with his feet braced against a vertical board. A rope was tied around his waist and passed through a hole in the vertical board, and pulling on this rope was a team of horses. This feat worked on the same principle as in the cannon supporting feat before mentioned.

Another startling feat described in this old book, and which is still popular in circuses and variety theatres, is performed as follows: An athlete will lie flat on his back and hold on his chest a heavy stone, or iron anvil, which must weigh at least 300 pounds. Small stones are then placed upon the anvil ( or large stone ) and an assistant will break the small stones by repeated blows of a sledge hammer. The only hard part of this feat is to support the weight of the anvil. If this is sufficiently large and heavy, it absorbs all the shock and man who is doing the supporting act hardly feels the blows of the sledge-hammer.

If a professional wishes to create the impression that he is a champion at one-arm lifting, he can often make his point by having a photograph taken showing him holding above his head with one arm an enormous bar-bell. In describing his own picture he can state that he lifts 250, 300 or 350 pounds above the head with arm, just as the fancy strikes him. He may or may not have lifted the bell into position with one arm. The chances are that the ball was pulled into position with ropes before the picture was taken. Sandow used to say: " I believe I could hold almost any amount of weight above my head on a straight arm if it was lifted into position for me." If a man can push up 100 pounds he outs to be able to support 250 pounds in a straight arm. George Lurich, whose best one-arm push was 265 pounds, has supported 750 pounds above his head on a straight arm.

The careful reader has probably perceived for himself that in all supporting feats, the weight is supported by the strength of the bones, while, when a weight is actually lifted, or moved, the work is thrown on the muscles. If you want to know how strong a man is you should find out how much he can lift or carry. "Supporting feats" are not tests of strength. The fact that a man can assume a certain position and support a weight of several thousand pounds does not prove that he is a particle stronger than the average sturdy day-laborer.

Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »

First 20 Books of SNS

It has come to my attention from Lulu who prints the copies of Super Natural Strength that the first 20 books sold in August had a printing glitch where several pages had the bottom line chopped off. It was corrected right away and only 20 books were involved. If you bought a book in August and had a few pages missing a bottom sentence, please call me: (202) 638 1708
I'll ask you a few questions to confirm you have the book and then give you an address to mail the book. You will get a new perfect book in exchange.

Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »

Review of Super Natural Strength By Fr. Paul Makar

With regard to SUPER NATURAL STRENGTH, all I can say is WOW!!!! "Maximum" Bob Whelan again hits a home run with the release of this new book. It is primarily a collection of articles that Bob had written for HARDGAINER, but the wisdom contained in these pages is priceless. Bob writes very clearly and succinctly in driving home the fundamental principles of weight training for overall health and functional strength. What Bob provides is not a get-fit quick instant gratification scheme, but rather an overall philosophy of physical culture that, with persistence, hard work, patience, and dedication, yields dividends in strength and health to those who apply his philosophy in life.

What I found most useful in this book is not so much the training routines that he provides, or the humorous stories (such as his description of trainees "drilling for oil" on the back pullover machine or punks requiring attitude adjustments on their first visit), but rather his writings on the importance of the attitude and focus that one must have in developing a total training philosophy that is oriented towards the end goal of attaining health and fitness. In particular, Bob's emphasizes a point in one chapter that can be summed up as "Physical culture is about what you do in the dark. It is about doing the right thing [when there is no one around to impress]." I paraphrased this from the book, credit and kudos to Bob for saying this so well!!!! How true this is. Only you, and you alone, can set reasonable goals and work hard to achieve them. Only you, and you alone, can provide the attitude that will get you the results you want. If you desire to achieve strength and health, then live clean, follow Bob's commandments in everything you do (if you want to know what the commandments are, get the book!), and work hard. You will never achieve good health, long life, and strength and fitness if you chow down on tons of junk food at home, smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, guzzle a six pack of beer every night, set ridiculous goals that are impossible to achieve, or follow the latest fad advice in many of the muscle magazines you see today. Specific training goals are mentioned in parts of the book (such as his descriptions of working with various Whelan Strength Training trainees), but Bob always orients his training philosophy to the ultimate end goal of physical health and strength, earned through honest hard work and dedication.

Bob is extremely passionate about physical culture and proper training and mindset, and he expects the same type of passion in his trainees and readers. However, it is very important to note that he tempers this passion with sound intellectual reasoning, and I am not talking about the spewing of scientific "facts" as proof that one method of training works better than another. Rather, as stated above, Bob puts forth a soundly reasoned, sensible, concise and BS-free blueprint of training for the ulterior goal of physical health and strength, and shows how important effort and self-motivation are.

If you are looking for outrageous training regimens that require many man hours in the gym plus hundreds of dollars of supplements (or even worse, steroids), or fancy toning training as espoused by many glam fitness magazines, or the latest scientifically developed training routine that is "guaranteed" to give results in less than 30 days, this book is not for you. On the other hand, if you are looking to develop a total training philosophy that will carry over into every aspect of your life and deliver quality fitness, strength, and health, then I urge you to at least consider this book. In the Catholic faith, many of the old spiritual fathers and theologians are called "Fathers of the Church." In a similar vein, "Maximum" Bob can truly be called a "Father of Physical Culture" for collecting the salient points of his training philosophy (a philosophy that echoes the old time greats of physical culture such as Sandow, Maxick, Grimek, and others) and presenting it in a clear, concise and easy to understand manner that is truly and uniquely Bob's formulation. I strongly recommend this book, especially if you consider yourself a true student of honest physical culture!

Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »

My Friendship with Arthur Saxon - by Thomas Inch

It was not long after my arrival in London at the age of 21 that I met a world-renowned weightlifter who was fated to have a great influence upon my strength career, the late Arthur Saxon.

I lived in Fulham where the local music hall is a small but not unimportant one as the “Granville.” Visiting the hall one evening accompanied by my wife, I first saw the act of the famous Saxon Brothers – Arthur, Herman and Kurt. I immediately realized while watching the great Arthur that I was looking at a real strongman, one capable of feats which, at that time, no other man in the world could accomplish.

The feat of holding up a genuine 300 lb. barbell with two heavy men seated thereon and at the same time supporting upon the feet a long heavy plank with about a dozen men clutching each other for safety upon that insecure seat was most impressive, and everything was done with such ease and lack of effort I felt astounded. I made up my mind to make this superman’s acquaintance.

This I was shortly after enabled to do through the editor of a physical culture magazine commissioning me to visit the Brand Music Hall, Clapham, and take with me a scale with which to test Saxon’s claim that he was raising 300 lbs. overhead single handed twice nightly.

The Saxons had no inkling of my intended visit but I was pleased to find that they placed no obstacles whatever in my way; they seemed only too glad to believe that at last something was being done to establish their claims.

This was because at the time it was quite customary for so-called strongmen to outrageously exaggerate their lifts, one 10 stone (140 lb) lifter calmly claiming a Bent Press of 336 lbs. whilst the bell probably weighed only 140 lbs. or so.

I found everything in order, the thick handled bar being a little over the weight claimed. It was NEVER less than 300 lbs. all the time I knew this great lifter.

Once, indeed, at Battersea, the card read 286 lbs., but the bell, of course, was a good 300 as usual. Asked what this meant, Arthur, to my surprise, said, “We have lost the 300 lbs. card and they cost money, but we have a nice 286 lbs. card.” Such behavior had never been known in the lifting world before.

The Saxons believed in hard work and plenty of it.

Even when appearing twice a night with this laborious and trying set of feats of strength they practiced for two or three hours in the morning and seemed tireless.

Thus the Saxons had what others at that time lacked – the method of daily hard work which has got the champions of today where they are. But in this system they stood alone, others did as little as possible and the general standard of lifting was low at the time.

I am often asked about Saxon’s measurements and his best lifts. They were as follows:

Height, 5ft. 10ins.; Weight, 200 lbs.; Neck, 17; Biceps, 17; Forearm, 14½; Chest 44; Thigh, 24; Calf, 16; Wrist, 8 ½.

Saxon’s muscles were tough, also his tendons and sinews, tuned over a period of years with really prodigious feats of strength. He was once a good wrestler but gave this up save for an occasional bout of Swiss wrestling (i.e., wearing a strong belt with leather rings). This style, which he taught me, required strength above all, and it suited him well and he was probably the best in the world at that particular style.

His best lift was, of course, the Bent Press, or a Two Hands Anyhow with Barbell and Ringweight, the barbell to be pressed single handed and not jerked and changed to one hand (the style which I introduced for the first time in my match with Aston). Arthur Saxon’s British record was 336 lbs. Bent Press and 411 lbs. Barbell and Ringweight. These were performed in strict conditions. He always seemed capable to me of doing substantially more but was never lucky when the attempts were made.

For instance, Peggy Bettinson. if the National Sporting Club, gave permission for Arthur to attempt to raise 350 lbs. Bent Press on the occasion of a big fight at the club when the late Lord Lonsdale was present. This was to settle a wager I made of £50 with a well known North Country lifter.

Unfortunately the barbell was loaded to 353½ lbs. and perhaps this would not have mattered (the odd 3½ lbs.) but Arthur chose his stage barbell instead of a disc bell. It was loaded with sand and the globes were filled, they had no dead point as we say. Thus there was nothing in the very thick and perfectly straight bar to prevent it rolling in his hands and this it did each time it went to a straight arm, six times in all, so there was nothing left for me to do but to pay and look pleasant.

Arthur left the club in a fit of depression which was somewhat relieved when we reached my home where he was staying and I asked him to produce and inspect the leather bag which I had handed him in the club ring with suitable praise as a testimonial from his British supporters.

Arthur was always looking for justifiable stage by-play and had thought that there were a few silver coins in the bag for the sake of effect. When he opened the bag and poured out the contents – over £50 in golden sovereigns – it did much to make up for his big disappointment.

He tried again later but again was unlucky.

A claim was put forward that he had raised 370 lbs. when on the Continent but I am afraid that this lift was not checked properly and could hardly be accepted as a strict record.

At the same time, in spite of the fact that I had made a special 370 lbs. bell at his request and that he failed to press it, I would not put such a figure beyond him under good conditions with just that bit of luck which such a tremendous weight requires.

At one time the so-called friends of the Saxons claimed that he had, in the early hours of the morning, and after discarding all clothing until he was quite naked, raised over 400 lbs. bent press after commencing with a very much higher weight.

I can say now that Saxon himself never wished this claim to be made; he always gave me to understand that it was much exaggerated to say the least and in spite of threats from interested people as to what will happen if anyone dares to doubt this rather preposterous story I say that it was just nonsense and the actual weight of the early morning lift will never be known.

His feats were wonderful enough in all conscience without being stretched and Saxon was a most truthful man who never wished to receive credit save for actual feats.

He only showed me a 311 lbs. Two Hands Clean because he was not a fast lifter and there was a lot of “push” in his jerks.

I saw him do well over 280 lbs. Two Dumbells Clean and Jerk and when the bells came to the shoulder first attempt one slipped back to the side of the thigh, the left hand bell over 140 lbs. weight. Making a laughing remark Arthur calmly curled the bell back again and then half pushed and half jerked them.

The best Two Hands Press I saw was between 250 and 260 lbs., accomplished as if he had a lot in hand and let it be known that he did not bend back an inch or sway or move in any way, just forced the bell up with sheer power in a perfect “military” style of press as we then called that style of lift. He could have raised much more by leaning back.

I saw him Right Hand Swing 187 lbs. using a straight arm and a bell with discs evenly loaded (no back hang). This he did in the bent press position and with practice would probably have exceeded 200 lbs. I have seen him Snatch over 200 lbs. right hand in perfect style and it was his practice just before the curtain went up for his show to do a perfect Single-Handed Military Press with a barbell of 126 lbs. and the only reason he did not do more was because that was the only weight available.

He had two ringweights, solid, 150 lbs. each, the handles very close to the globes. He would swing one up and then stoop down and swing up the other. This 300 lb. lift he made the subject of an offer of either £50 or £100 and needless to say he never lost his money.

He was not a very big eater, he left that to the young brothers Herman and Kurt who were remarkable trenchermen. I could tell unbelievable stories of their gastronomic performances at my home which would be difficult to credit.

Arthur, however, was certainly a heavy drinker and once when a Fulham crowd at the Red Lion endeavored for a joke to get him drunk so that he could not go through with his show, he drank some 50 glasses of beer and had the last laugh as he never performed so well as that night at the “Granville.”

When he ascertained what had been intended he roared with laughter and told the plotters that he had been ‘weaned on beer.’

I trained with Arthur and the two boys at Manchester for the World Middleweight Championship, which I won at the German Gym defeating Billy Caswell. Using heavy weights to keep pace as far as I could with these champions, I made great strides modeling my Bent Press on Arthur’s style and my jerks on Herman and Kurt – who even then used the style of today, the special hold with the elbows high at shoulders and the fast split, etc. Their method was to start very low, with say a 100 lbs. bell, and work up until first one and then another dropped out leaving Arthur the champion every time. Of course, I was the first to cry “enough.”

Yes, I have much to thank Arthur for.

For his part he always credited me with being outstanding at feats of grip and never succeeded in lifting my challenge dumbell or closing my record gripper. It was this knowledge, during 15 years of practice together, that made me so confident that I would never lose my money. And if a champion with lifting brains like Arthur never found anything in the way of trickery or ‘secrets’ in my solid thick handled bell I think that is sufficient answer to the charge in a physical culture magazine that Inch knows a secret without which no one can lift the £200 challenge bell. The secret was a 15-inch forearm, unusually developed will power and constant practice.

Arthur seemed to have an objection to going to bed at a reasonable hour and often sat up right through the night smoking, playing billiards, even lifting at three or four in the morning. Of course, it is evident that we never saw the best of him and that, properly trained as we understand it today, he could have done very much more than he ever did. He was never extended and to this day his Bent Press and Two Hands Anyhow are unbeaten.

At the height of his career Saxon met with a serious accident. Through no fault of his own a heavy wooden bridge loaded with a large motor car and a number of people fell on him whilst he was supporting it. He was in hospital a long time, iron bolts having been driven in at several places.

He recovered but died at about 43 years of age from pneumonia.


Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »

THE TRUTH ABOUT WEIGHTLIFTING - (circa 1911) - Chapter 4 - By Alan Calvert

For some reason, the one-hand slow “press,” or “push up,” is no longer included in competition lifting in Europe, but it is still favored to some extent in both amateur and professional lifting in England, and is almost exclusively used in competition lifting in America. The reason the one-hand slow "press" is excluded in Europe is because it is so hard to lay down rules governing this lift.

The one-hand slow "push up" can be divided into three separate lifts: First, there is the slow, steady, push with the body held in military position; second, an ordinary "press," or "push up;" and third, the "bent press" or "screw press." We will describe these lifts in detail.

First, the lift in military position. In this lift it is customary to use a short-handled dumbbell. The lifter is allowed to raise the bell from the floor to the shoulder in any manner he pleases, but after he gets the bell to the shoulder (in the right hand, for instance) he must assume what is known as the military position, or what we call in this country "attention." He must stand rigidly upright, heels together and knees touching, left arm held close to the left side, and he must keep this position while he pushed the bell slowly aloft with the right arm. (If he is lifting with the left hand, the right arm is held close to the right side). When you push a bell above the head with one hand the natural tendency is always to let the body bend at the waist. When you push with the right hand the body will naturally bend to the left.

It is hard to keep the body perfectly upright, even when you stand with the feet about 15 inches apart, and when you stand with the heels close together in military position it is doubly hard to keep the body from bending. This lift is a test of pure strength; skill does not cut any figure at all. Therefore, if a man presses 100 lbs. over the head with the right arm in this particular lift he performs a fine test of strength; 125 lbs. is a remarkable lift, while 150 lbs. is simply extraordinary. Carl Witzelsberger, of Vienna, holds the world's record with 154 lbs. Three or four German and French lifters have succeeded in lifting 143 lbs. Many men who claim records of 200 to 300 lbs. in the one-arm "bent press" cannot lift 125 lbs. in military position. Generally speaking, a man cannot lift more than two-thirds of his own weight in this manner, and half his own weight would be considered a very good lift.

THE ORDINARY "PRESS" OR "PUSH UP." In this lift the athlete is privileged to stand in any position he chooses, but generally he takes a position with the feet about 15 inches apart. He is not allowed to bend the legs at the knees while making the lift. Some men will simply push the bell aloft and allow the body to bend to the opposite side, while other men will give themselves a start by bending first to one side, then straightening suddenly in order to give momentum to the bell and finishing the lift with a bend to the other side. To explain more fully, suppose a lifter has a bell at this right hand, as he starts the lift he will drop the right shoulder and bend 3 or 4 inches to the right; then he will heave the bell aloft, using the strength of the side muscles to start the bell upwards, and as the bell goes upward, he will bend the body far to the left. The important point in this lift is that the legs are not allowed to bend at the knees. This lift requires enormous strength and is a good test of a man's ability. It is a lift pure and simple. A good, heavy man will put up 200 lbs. and more in this manner. This is the way Louis Cyr made his famous lift of 273 1/4 lbs. Cyr, as you may remember, was an enormously heavy man, weighing over 300 lbs. and was so stout that he was unable to bend very far at the waist; and I am informed by professionals who saw his lift that Cyr was utterly incapable of performing the "bent press" in the way that it is practiced by Sandow, Saxon, and other professionals. Nobody else has ever come near Cyr's record in this lift, and it is one of the most wonderful feat of strength of which we have a record. There are half a dozen German lifters who are accredited with records of 220 to 242 lbs. In this lift. Hackenschmidt, the Russian wrestler, is said to have lifted 242 lbs. in this manner and to have lifted 220 lbs. twice in succession. "Cyclops" Bienkowski, who toured this country in 1891, could raise 242 lbs. in this lift. He carried a dumbbell of that weight through the United States with him, and he did not find any American lifter woho could get the bell above the head with one hand, even when they resorted to the "bent press."

BENT PRESS. This lift is also know as the "body-press" or "screw-press." In one-arm lifting above the head more can be raised by the "bent-press" than by any other method.

There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not the "bent-press' is really a lift; some authorities claiming that it is more of a supporting and balancing feat than a genuine lift. In making this lift the athlete will generally use a long-handled bar-bell, with a handle over 2 inches thick. It is possible to raise from the shoulder by the bent press far more than can be lifted from the ground to the shoulder with one hand. As the pressing motion is a very slow one, and quite exhausting, the lifter generally saves his strength as much as possible for the final effort, and consequently raises the bell to the shoulder in the easiest manner. This is done by standing the bell on end and rocking it into position. Now we assume that the lifter has the bell in a horizontal position at his shoulder, the bar grasped in the exact center with his right hand. He now leans forward and to the left, balancing the bell meanwhile in the right hand, keeping the right forearm perpendicular to the floor. If the weight is a very heavy one he will bend until his left shoulder touches his left knee. At this period of the lift the right arm should be almost straight. The lifter then bends his right leg at the knee, which will drop his body far enough o enable him to get under the bell with the right arm straight. By taking great care to keep the bell balanced he can then bring his body to an upright position and finish the lift.

In one manner of this lift the athlete is all the way down and gets his left arm straight under the bell. In fact, the bell is really held in one position, and the athlete bends away from it until he can get the arm straight, and then by straightening the legs and body comes to erect position with the bell over the head.

I incline to the opinion that the "bent-press" is more of a supporting feat than a genuine lift. Almost every lifter is able to master the standard lifts, such as the "jerk," "snatch," "swing" and the "press" in military position, but comparatively few athletes can fully master the "bent-press." In this country it is used almost exclusively by professionals. A man not only has to have strength, but also must have a great deal of skill at balancing, and must be able to keep a cool head if he wants to excel in the "bent-press." Any good "hand-balancer," especially a man who is expert at balancing himself on one hand, should be able to make a fairly good record in the "bent-press."

In England the "bent-press" still retains its former popularity. The English people are very slow to change. Sandow made the "bent-press" popular many years ago, and the English still stick to it.

The reason professionals favor this lift is given in Chapter II. By having a thick-handled bell, which they raise above the head with one arm, they are able to create a very good impression if a man from the audience fails to raise the bell above the head when using both arms. The audience figures that if the professional puts 250 lbs. up with one hand he can put up 500 lbs. with both hands.

Sandow, who practically introduced the lift in England and America, has a record of 271 lbs. in the "bent-press," which was made in public. He always claimed that could lift in excess of 300 lbs. in this way, but, as he would never permit his exhibition bells to be weighed, his claim has never been allowed by the most eminent weight-lifting authorities.

When touring the United States in the '90s Sandow used to make a great hit by pressing a large bell of which each end was made of leather, and was large enough to hold a small man. At the completion of the lift, as the bell was replaced on the stage, the men would step out from the ends of the bell. Of course, it was necessary to use very small men, but in order to create the impression that the man were heavy, they always were dressed in very baggy clothes. They used to hang up a sign reading 320 lbs. when Sandow made the lift. I doubt very much if the men and apparatus together weighed more than 260 lbs. Since Sandow's time a number of German, English and American lifters have specialized in this lift. To the best of my knowledge and belief only one man has ever succeeded in raising more than 300 lbs., and that man is Arthur Saxon. Saxon is officially credited with having raised 336 llbs. with his right arm in this manner. He once tried a 350-lb. bell before the National Sporting Club of London, but he failed to make the lift. His admirers claim that he once pressed 370 lbs. in a weight-lifting club in Germany. This lift has never been certified. Outside of Arthur Saxon, I do not believe there is a man in the world today who can raise 295 lbs. above his head with the right arm; by this I mean the "bent press: from the should to arm's length above the head.

HOLDING BELLS "IN THE BALANCE." This is the feat known in America as "muscling out," or holding bells straight out from the shoulder with the arm horizontal. This is test of pure strength; very little skill enters into the performance of the feat. In order to make sure that no one contestant has any particular advantage, all lifters are compelled by the European rules to perform this lift in a certain manner. Two variations of this lift are practiced. When a single weight is held in one hand, it is the custom to employ a kettle-bell or ring-weight. The weight is first lifted up to the height of the chest, and then the arm is straightened out directly to the front. The knuckles of the lifting hand are upwards and the ring of the weight hangs on the bent fingers and the thumb. The man making the lift is compelled to stand as nearly upright as possible, although a slight bend backward from the waist is permitted. If the lift is made with the right arm, the lifter is allowed to advance the left foot, and vice versa.

The record in this feat is the 112-lb. lift of Michael Mayer. Carl Abs, the famous German strong man of the '90s, is unofficially credited with 110 lbs. and several big Frenchman have held out weights between 80 and 90 lbs. It takes a tremendously strong, heavy man to excel in this feat. It requires not only strength in the arm and shoulder muscles, but also a very strong back.

When one weight is held in each hand it is customary to first lift the weights above the head and let the arms drop to the sides. In this lift the weights rests on the palm of the hand, but the arms must be held rigidly straight from the sides. A light man can make better records in this event than when holding one weight out in front of him, because in the two-arm lift the weights balance each other. The record is held by the Russian lifter, Khryloff, with 90 lbs. in each hand. George Hackenschmidt, also a Russian, comes next with 90 lbs. in the right hand and 89 in the left.

HARNESS LIFTING. This particular kind of lifting is practiced almost exclusively by professionals, because in order to make a harness lift properly it is necessary to have large and costly apparatus. In the first place, it is necessary to have a specially constructed platform, which will enable the lifter to be a considerable distance above the ground. The platform is usually made with the legs spread, so as to prevent the platform from overturning. On the ground is placed another square platform. From each corner of the lower platform chains run up and attach to a collar fastened around the lifter's neck. In some cases the whole four chains are attached to the bottom of the collar. In other cases the lifter has a collar made from a square piece of leather, and the chains are attached to each corner of the leather, so that two chains pass the front of the lifter and two behind him; in this case, instead of having one hole in the upper platform for the chain to pass through, it is necessary to have four holes, one for each chain. On the upper platform are two strong rails (or hand-rests) to give support to the lifter's hands.

The weight is placed on the lower platform, and the lifter first gets in position with his legs bent slightly at the knees, arms bent slightly at the elbows and the body inclined slightly forward from the hips. He then makes a tremendous effort and simultaneously straightens his arms and legs and brings his body to an erect position, and by so doing he will raise the lower platform and weight an inch or two from the ground. More weight can be lifted in the harness lift than in any other manner, because a harness lift calls for concerted action of all the large extensor muscles. The extensor muscles of the back of the upper arm, which straighten the arms, are much more powerful than the flexor muscles, which bend the arm. The extensor muscles on the front of the thigh are much stronger than the flexor muscles on the back of the thigh, which bend the leg. The large muscles of the back, which straighten the trunk, are very much stronger than the muscles of the abdomen, which bend the trunk. In the harness lift all the extensor muscles are employed at the same time. Tremendous weights have been raised in this manner. Some stage exhibitors use living weights, such as 12 to 25 men, or a couple of horses; other performers use heavy dumbbells or a ton or so of pig iron.

John Marx claims that he has lifted over 4000 lbs., and I fully believe this feat is possible. C. A. Sampson, the Alsatian lifter, was given a medal by the National Sporting Club of London for lifting 4003 lbs. in the harness lift, and the lift was made under such conditions as precluded all chance of fraud. The harness lift is shown in this country by several vaudeville and circus performers, but I do not know whether any of these men attempt to prove the amount of weight they lift. Twelve to fifteen men is generally about the limit and I suppose that 1800 or 2500 lbs. is as much of the American performers lift I believe in harness lifting that if a record is attempted, pig iron or some similar material should be used with which to load the lower platform. When live weights, such as men and horses, are used there is always bound to be some question regarding the exact weight.

BACK LIFTING. This lift is performed in somewhat similar manner to the harness lift, except that the performer stands under the weight instead of above it. The weight is placed on a platform, which is supported by two high, wooden "horses." The lifter gets underneath the platform in a stooping position and has a support for his hands. He then straightens the arms and the legs and partly straightens the back, and lifts the platform which thus rests upon his shoulders. The famous Louis Cyr was credited with having raised 4300 lbs. in the back lift, and this, I believe, is the record.

The back lift is more dangerous than the harness lift, because in the former the lifter, being beneath the weight, has to balance it. There is also the danger of one of the wooden horses tilting over when the weight comes down at the completion of the lift, and if this happens the lifter is very apt to be crushed by the falling platform. One or two serious accidents have happened in this way.

Both back lifting and harness lifting throw a tremendous strain on the muscles, and also on the vital organs. Still, if a man is properly trained for the lift he can raise enormous weights without much fear of injury. Very few amateurs ever have the opportunity of trying their strength at harness lifting, but I believe that the average amateur lifter (for instance, a man weighing 170 lbs., who can lift 250 lbs. above his head with two hands) can learn to lift 2500 or 3000 lbs. in a harness or back lift after a few weeks' practice.

DEAD WEIGHT LIFTING. In this lift the performer stands on two chairs (or strong stools), grasps the handle of the weight in both hands and raises it one or two inched from the ground by simultaneously straightening his legs and back. The apparatus most convenient for this kind of lifting consists merely of 100-lb. iron plates on a vertical rod, while at the top of the vertical rod is fixed a horizontal handle. The amount that can be raised in this manner is largely governed by the strength of a man's grip. The proper way to raise the weight is to stand with the legs bent slightly at the knees and body inclined slightly forward; the arms are kept straight and act merely as connecting links between the shoulder muscles and the handle of the apparatus. It is very important that the back should be straight and not curved; all the bending should be done from the hips.

If the back is allowed to arch there is considerable danger of rupturing the wall of the abdomen. This feat calls for tremendous strength in the grip, the trapezius muscles, which raise the shoulder, and the muscles on the outside of the thighs and of the small of the back. Any athlete who can lift a 275-lb. bell above the head with both hands should easily be able to raise 1000 lbs. with two hands in this "dead-weight" lift. The record in "dead weight" lifting is Louis Cyr's performance of 1897 lbs. D. L. Dowd, a very famous athlete of 20 years ago, lifted 1440 lbs. Cyr once lifted 987 lbs. with one hand, without any artificial aid to his grip; and Hans Steyrer, of Munich, Germany, lifted 581 lbs. with the middle finger. In the one-finger lift it is, of course, necessary to attach a loop of leather ( or some other pliable material ) to the handle of the weight. The middle finger is slipped through the loop.

When lifts are made with one hand ( or one finger ) it will greatly aid the lifter if he will put the disengaged hand on the thigh, right above the knee. This steadies the lifter, and if he pushed downward with the disengaged hand it will materially assist in raising the weight.

In regard to Cyr's lift of 987 lbs. with one hand, I always have been curious to know what sort of handle was attached to the weight which was lifted on this occasion. I do not believe that it was a straight handle-bar of iron or of wood, because in such a case it could not be more than 1 inch thick, and even then I do not believe the mighty Cyr himself had a grip strong enough to raise that amount with one hand. One-hand lifting is very much harder than two, because in the two-hand lifts it is customary to grip the handle with the hands turned in opposite directions; that is, the palms of the hands facing each other, as it were. This steadies the weight and prevents it from turning or swinging, I feel sure that Cyr must have had a rope, or canvas hand-grip, attached to the 987 lbs. which he raised with one hand.

DEAD-WEIGHT LIFTING TO THE CROSS POSITION. In this lift a long bar-bell is placed on the ground in front of the lifter, and he is supposed to lean forward, bending the body at the hips and arching his spine, but not bending the legs at the knees; and then, by straightening his back, raise the weight to the height of the hips.

I never remember seeing this lift attempted in this country, though I believe it is popular in some parts of Germany and France. It differs from "dead-weight" lifting both in position the lifter is compelled to assume and in the height the weight is raised from the ground. In "dead-weight" lifting the back and legs are straightened simultaneously and the weight is only raised and inch or two, but in lifting to the cross position the weight is raised entirely by the strength of the back and shoulders and in case of a man of average height is lifted about 30 inches from the ground. I am obliged to confess that I am ignorant of the record of this particular lift, though I am strongly under the impression that it is in the neighborhood of 650 lbs. and that the lift was made by a 250-lb. man. In lifting to the "cross" position and in "dead-weight" lifting there is not the slightest chance of faking, because it is practically compulsory to use dead weight. These lifts are, therefore, tests of pure strength.

In connection with "dead-weight" and harness lifting it is appropriate to mention the feats of the wonderful German, George Lettl. This man, who enjoys a great reputation in Germany, came to this country a few years ago, but owing to the fact that he had no "stage presence," as the actors say, and also to the fact that he insisted on showing genuine feats of strength, he was unable to get any engagements in first-class vaudeville houses in our principal cities. Lettl might be described as a "freak of nature." He is a man over 40 years of age, stands 5 feet 6 inches in height and weighs 135 lbs.; chest is only 36 inches, upper arm 13, thigh about 20 inches.

Thousands of men can show measurements equally as good, but not one man out of a thousand can equal Lettl in pure strength. Lettl's specialty was "dead-weight" and "harness lifting." In "harness lifting" he raised over 3700 lbs. (something marvelous for a man of his weight and physique), and in "dead-weight lifting" he has lifted over 1600 lbs. with both hands.

Lettl seems to be the exception that proves the rule. Ninety-nine out of a hundred men who have pursued weight-lifting for any length of time develop powerfully muscled bodies, but Lettl is the exception in that he does not appear muscular or athletic in any way.

Physical Culture Books.com

Read More »