Talk:Bench press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Health and fitness (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stuff that wound up above the table of contents[edit]

It would be very interesting to me, and probably to others, to know how much the various lifters weighed at the time they made their records. However, I have no idea where to look for this information. Perhaps someone could add that information to this article? Also, how much weight would the "average" person be able to bench press, for comparison? Whateley23 02:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe the statement about declined press working the upper pecs and inclined press working the lower pecs is reversed, but I'd like someone to agree before I change it.

The information on this page is seriously flawed and/or outdated. One of the lastest articles from the National Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research just published a study which disproves the long held belief that you can recruit the specific regions of the pectoral (upper, middle, lower) by varying the angle of resistance. The summary of the report stated that the pectorals either contract or they don't, regardless of angle. They did however find a difference in muscle fiber recruitment by varying hand positions (pronated, supinated, wide, narrow, etc). I wish I could find that article, I think it was in mid-2005. Oh, and the world record is far above 713, and has been for years now. Probably closer to 800 (drug tested!).

The author(s) of this article wrote, "Everyone experiencing problems with or pain in their shoulders should resort to the decline version." DO NOT DO THIS!!! If you are experiencing pain, in your shoulders or anywhere else you should either a.)improve your technique b.) consult a qualified trainer/coach c.)use lighter weight (which will help you use better technique). If you put your hand on a hot stove, and it hurt, would you keep doing it assuming that eventually the pain would stop?

Im not sure this is worthy of the article, but when bench pressing it is very important to keep the scapulae retracted and shoulders pinned back on the bench - too many novices/intermediates push through a bench press with their shoulders, placing unnecessary stress on the shoulders, which leads to all kinds of shoulder problems (Rotator Cuff, AC joint etc). If you watch a video of powerlifters bench pressing their shoulders are pinned back tight! StrengthCoach 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
i made a few edits, feel free to discuss, ignore my above comment, i missed that in the article first time around (somehow?!?) StrengthCoach 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The world record reported in this article of 713lbs is a RAW record (and it is cleary stated).

This 2004 article puts it at 713lbs by Scot Mendelson -

This one - also puts it at 713lbs,

and this 2005 article also puts it at 713lbs - U R A GR8 M8 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I threw everything that wasn't under another topic under this heading to keep the talk page tidy. Hope that's all right with everyone. TheRuss 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One-repetition fitness levels[edit]

Can somebody tell me why this is here? It has nothing to do with bench press other other than showing figures required for police for entering criteria? 21:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

World record[edit]

The article states the world record belongs to Gene Rychlak, but the Gene_Rychlak article itself states that his record was beaten by Scot Mendelson.

I guess we haven't gotten around to changing it yet. Nothing is stopping you, however. Yankees76 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

strange advanced 'bodybuilder' bench press figures[edit]

i am unsure asto whether the figure for bodyweight is given in pounds (i cant imagine somebody weighing 246kg) if in pounds then: a person weighing 105-120lbs/47-54kg should have a bench press of 260lbs/117.93kg, and a person weighing 171-185lbs/77-84kg should have a bench press of 360lbs/163kg.

i think that is definitely not true, or achievable, except for those that are genetically gifted/assisted/or steroid users.

I hate to disagree with the comment above this but I must. As a person that never 'competed' in bodybuilding or in powerlifting; I broke the 400 lb. bench press when I weighed 215 lbs. At this point of my life (I was 22) I never even considered steroids. I ate right, worked out hard, slept enough and took supplements you can buy OTC.

Congrats to you (I'm not being sarcastic you should be proud of yourself) but I have worked out since I was 13 am a former personal trainer and also think they are ridiculous.Quadzilla99 00:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Those numbers are not normal for a natural, unequipped lifter not specifically doing powerlifting. In fact, looking at this years IPF worlds, I would say a few competitors in the 75k/82.5k class would struggle with 360lbs if they tried it unequipped. A lot of people probably aren't aware that they are genetically gifted in an exercise.

Form - Pinching shoulder blades?[edit]

I just tried this today and it was a lot harder to keep stable. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else(for instance doesn't talk about it) and I'm just wondering if this is really a good thing to be suggesting to people on a general encycopledia page when most people are gonna be having enough trouble keeping the bar balanced in the first place. Also, can someone reference where this info came from? Krymson 01:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The scapula must be retracted when benching using proper form. This is fairly common knowledge - at least amongst knowledgable or experienced lifters/bodybuilders. Some sources of reference include, [1], [2],and this one in particular (scroll down for picture)[3]. Hope this helps. Yankees76 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, those are good enough for me, but I do note that two of the three sources you gave me noted that this is for developing pecs and not for powerlifting. Krymson 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Arch and drive the legs into the floor so your upper back with scapula nicely retracted are driven into the bench. You will feel rock solid when you learn how to do this properly.

Barbell vs dumbell[edit]

"Can also be performed with dumbbells which incorporates less use of stabilizer muscles." It would be nice to have a quote saying that dumbells work less the stabilizer muscles than barbell. I agree with it but a dumb gym owner told me the opposite.

They don't though. Dumbells use more stabilizers.Yankees76 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Average Bench Press[edit]

What's the source that states the average man who doesn't engage in strength training can bench between 115 and 150 pounds? Without a source, it sounds more like someone's opinion rather than actual fact. Odin's Beard 01:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


The article mentions "closed grip" but many people might not realize that this means wrap your thumbs around the bar. In fact, the photo in the article depicts the opposite. Not wrapping the thumbs is a safety hazard. It is a rampant practice in gyms and I fear this battle is lost. Some say it recruits the pecs better this way, but that is recruit the pecs, use a wide grip, lower the bar high on the chest, and use vertical elbows. I think people like to show they can tempt fate. A H.S. kid died in my area last year doing this.

So? Work on improving and updating the article with information you posted. Just find some sources for the info - if you're righr it shouldn't be too hard. BTW i doubt a thumbless grip would be the cause of a kids death - I'd be more inclined to believe it was more weight than he could handle along with a lack of proper spotting. Yankees76 03:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The bar can slip off the palm of the hand very quickly, and without the bencher being able to slow the descent (as usually happens when the bencher begins to fail), the bar can free fall very fast, with or without a ‘proper’ spot. It doesn't matter if the person had ‘too much weight to handle.’ That's like saying it doesn't matter whether or not a person who died didn't have their seat belt on because they were doing 50 mph instead of the 45 mph speed limit. It doesn’t take a lot of weight dropping on someone’s upper chest to seriously injure or kill them.

There have been many accidents by people who can handle the weight (read: competitive powerlifters) who use a thumbless (suicide) grip. This image should be changed ASAP since it is teaching an incorrect bench press technique. Citations can include Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe and Lon Kilgore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuanHao (talkcontribs) 16:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bench Shirts[edit]

Could do with a section, from someone with knowledge regarding the history of, different materials, styles and techniques employed when training/competing equipped.

"This record was slightly broken"[edit]

Is that, like, "a little bit pregnant"? Daniel Barlow 13:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.Yankees76 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

There's only one citation in the entire article. At bare minimum, we should aim to substantiate the claims about world records - not necessarily sworn affidavits, but specific information as far as which meet, what date, which federation, etc. would be great.

Beyond that, any reasonable sources to substantiate other elements of the article would be much appreciated - not just to prove it's true, but so people can conduct further research on the subject. I'll contribute what I can. TheRuss 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Separate page for bench press records[edit]

I'm not sure why the records are kept separate from the main article about bench press. Not that I'm saying it's necessarily right or wrong - I just don't know. Any relevant Wikipedia guidelines would be greatly appreciated. TheRuss 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


When I was a kid in the early 60s I worked out for a while at Fred Hofmeister's gym in Indianapolis. Fred claimed to have invented the bench press. Can anyone confirm or disprove that? --Dan (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Hofmeister was full of hot air. The bench press has been around since the turn of the century, if not earlier. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone step forward and add a history section to the main page? Kortoso (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Big James Henderson[edit]

Is there any particular reason why we're listing the "heaviest drug tested bench press without any equipment" record? Isn't that a bit like listing the record for fastest 100m by a wheelchair athlete in the World record progression 100 metres men article? Shouldn't we just say he was the first RAW bench presser to reach 700 lbs. and leave it at that? --Yankees76 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. This section is about records and the only difference between the lift of Mendy and Big James is Big James drug tested and Mendy chose not to. I think many would agree that there are notable differences between what people achieve under the influence of performance enhancing substances and what is done legally and legitimately in athletics. -- Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I removed the "reference needs to be verified" requirement for since their website should be just as reliable as which is used in Mendy's record and since there is no evidence on the site that there is favoritism. -- Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording "The biggest IPF drug free bench press (RAW) was done by James Henderson at a bodyweight of 390 pounds in 1997 we believe" - particularly "we believe" does not imply that this website is particularly authoritative. Per WP:RS, articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. While I personally am confident that Henderson was the first person to bench over 700 lbs. without a bench shirt, Wikipedia requires articles to be well-sourced. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged (such has Henderson's claims of being drug-free) should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Please refer to the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability.
With regards to the source for Mendleson's record, there are numerous other sources that confirm that particular record, and there are not additional claims other than the weight he lifted, and that it was unassisted - making it easy to verify. Other than Henderson's own personal site, there do not appear to be any other reliable sources that confirm this claim that I'm able to locate after performing a Google search. Please feel free however, to provide additional sources that I may have overlooked. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said early, the "we believe" refers to the year the lift was done, not to the lift being drug free. Until we get to the bottom of this issue, we will place a "needs to be verified" on Mendy's record, remove the cite, and just use the Guinness World Records cite for Big James. I will email to see if they will respond to updating their information. Also, in order to verify the Mendy record, maybe we should find some more of the numerous sources that you mentioned to make sure there is no bias. This is a new topic to Wikipedia, but a very old topic in athletics. Big James Henderson's lift was done in the International Powerlifting Federation and under their strict anti-doping and anti-equipment policy. Mendy's lift and judging was sponsored by an equipment dealer. Because of the IPF and USPF high standards they are the only powerlifting organization recognized by the United States and International Olympic Committees. One could argue that since Mendy's record is only verified by a website and Big James' lift is in the Guinness Book of World Records that Big James' lift is the only one that should be listed here. I have emailed the IPF and the USPF for information on who holds their record, and whoever they return email me as their record holder should be posted as the drug-free champion. -- Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you review Wikipedia's original research policy before you go to the trouble. Surely if Henderson's record is so notable, there must be numerous online reliable sources to support what you're trying to add here. If there isn't - is the "record" really even that notable? This comes back to my original question - the "heaviest drug tested bench press without any equipment" record is just like listing the record for fastest 100m by a wheelchair athlete in the World record progression 100 metres men article. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, can you post an updated reference re: 1999 Guiness Book of World Records? If you're going to use it as a source, it should probably be reasonably up to date. 1999 is nearly a decade old. --Yankees76 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The anti-doping community should be as present in the Bench press record as it is in the Bench press world. No one who is a part of the powerlifting community denies that Big James Henderson was drug tested by the IPF and those same people know Mendy was not tested and they know Mendy's lift was not judged by a strict governing body like the IPF. My point is since the powerlifting world has made a clear distinction between those athletes who test for drugs and those who don't, shouldn't we do the same? If someone wants to accomplish something on dope, shouldn't the record have an asterisk? Doesn't it make it fair for those who choose not to cheat? Also, again, in order to verify the Mendy record, we should look for some more sources for Mendy's lift to make sure there is no bias towards him. If we can’t verify the lift with something besides a personal website, then I think we should take it down. In your repeated analogy, you liken Big James Henderson to a physically challenged athlete. Are you saying Big James was physically challenged because he chose to not use drugs? If you want to keep using this analogy, please explain your point clearly because I am losing the connection. As for the Guinness World Record, I guess we can update the entry when the record is broken and Guinness Media chooses to reprint who they think the Bench press World record holder is. Note: the lift was in 1997 so the record is more than a decade old and Big James held the record for six years prior to that. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports verifiable information reported in reliable sources. Given the internet, press sources are a tenuous source of information. Something like a world record should be easy to verify via the web. Based on this site, it appears that Kenneth Sandvik holds the record, not Henderson, but it's difficult to sort out what sources are reliable. Web fora and unreviewed random websites are out - given previous sources, the GBWR is the best we've got so far, and a record can hold for 10 years, but it would be nice to verify. My library does have a copy, I might be able to verify in the near future. WLU (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Wow. I just got an email response from Steve Denison whose bio is here. You will agree that he is an authority in this area and his email states that “No one has beaten Henderson's record without a shirt and drug tested.” He also stated "Mendelson's lift was sanctioned under the APF." I asked him if he had any other ideas on cross-checking bench press records and if I can post his email here. I have to admit that in his response he made me feel sheepish when he asked me if I was related to Big James. Two points for WLU and one apology. I am sorry. I was wrong. I was wrong. The first mistake was incorrectly citing my source and the other for not realizing WLU might assume I was related because of the same surname. I had trouble with my browser accessing the link listed above, but I did a search on the IPF official website and found that at the 18th World Open Men's Bench Press Championship on 03/06/2007 in Denmark, Kenneth Sandvik born in Finland in 1975 completed a bench shirt assisted bench press 337,5 kg (744 lb) He drug-tested negative for this lift, but we all would agree because it is assisted, it would not replace the Big James Henderson shirtless lift. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Unfortunately e-mails are unverifiable and do not count as reliable sources, it would be helpful if he could point to a publication of the record in a reliable source, and ideally a discussion of the different types of records extant. It's totally legit to break down records according to drug tested, shirtless, assisted, etc, but we really need to cite a discussion to verify the information rather than doing so ourselves. On a positive note, bench shirt has a wikipage, which makes it easier to discuss the differences between assisted and unassisted. If it was sanctioned by the APF, would they have a record of this either in print, or on their website? Publications by international federations, sanctioning and governing bodies would pass muster as reliable sources in my mind. WLU (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the email train for any interested. As for it being a reliable source, I have read the article on reliable sources, and I didn't find the area where it excluded email as a source. It seems to be verifiable. Also, in his email, he does list websites as sources to the lift. I think we are done here, right? Good work everyone! Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
From: (e-mail redacted)
Sent: 2/27/2008 6:21:51 PM
To: [USPF] Karen Matthews (e-mail redacted)
Dear Karen, I am interested in getting current USPF record information on the bench press. My current information says that Big James Henderson still holds the heaviest lift at 711 lbs. Can you please help me verify or deny this? I looked everywhere on the site and am having trouble finding the info for all-time lifts. Thank you for taking my email.
From: [USPF] Karen Matthews (e-mail redacted)
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:23 PM
To: (e-mail redacted)
I can help you verify. I show Jeff Peshek, (Masters 40-45) 308.5 weight class Did a 744 lbs single Bench in August 06 for the American Record for the USPF. Hope this helps. What weight class and age was the lift in?
From: Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (e-mail redacted)
Sent: 2/29/2008 4:40:16 AM
To: [USPF] Karen Matthews (e-mail redacted)
Supposively James Henderson born in 1965 bench pressed 711 lbs on 7/13/97 at an USPF/IPF meet in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. James must have weighed about 390 lbs. Can you confirm or deny this? Also, as far as Jeff Peshek, is there a link to the site you can give me to cite for this record and I am assuming it was USPF drug tested an judged to be without a bench shirt? Thank you so much for returning my email and helping me get the facts.
From: [USPF] Karen Matthews (e-mail redacted)
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 7:56 AM
To: [USPF] 'Steve Denison' (e-mail redacted)
Hi Steve, Can you help this person? 1997 was before my time in PL. THanks Karen
From: [USPF] 'Steve Denison' (e-mail redacted)
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:04 PM
To: [USPF] Karen Matthews (e-mail redacted)
Cc: (e-mail redacted)
That's a true statement about James Henderson. Jeff Peshek's American bench record of 744 is posted online here:
Jeff Peshek's bench record was not drug tested and he used a bench shirt in the Aug 19, 2006 USPF Senior National Powerlifting and Benchpress Championships in Chester, WV.
From: (e-mail redacted)
To: [USPF] 'Steve Denison' (e-mail redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 6:58 AM
Dear Steve, I am trying to edit the Bench Press Record for Wikipedia and I have stepped into a lot of controversy concerning Big James Henderson. Is his lift in Philadelphia published by USPF or IPF on the net anywhere? Was it drug tested? Did he wear a shirt? Was Scott Mendelson's lift drug tested? Did he wear any type of bench shirt? Was Mendelson's lift judged under the strict USPF/IPF standards? Has there been anyone else that has benched more than Big James Henderson in an IPF/USPF meet without a shirt and drug-tested? It would be great if I could find a link to any official records. My main objective is to question any lifts for Wikipedia articles that are not conducted in an organization such as the USPF or IPF. Thank you. I appreciate the help.
From: [USPF] 'Steve Denison' (e-mail redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:15 AM
To: (e-mail redacted)
Jeff, First off, are you related to James Henderson? 2nd, who are you? I've never heard of you at any Powerlifting meet. You can use to find just about anything. Type in: James Henderson, bench press, USPF. Also Go to IPF website and look for results on left side. There's a search box on the IPF site as well. James Henderson was drug tested for all his record benches and passed everyone of them and he never wore a shirt. No one has beaten Henderson's record without a shirt and drug tested. Scot Mendelson's lift was not drug tested and he never wore a shirt when he did 715. I personally witnessed his 701 bench with no shirt in San Francisco in Oct 2002. Mendelson's lift was sanctioned under the APF.
From: (e-mail redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:11 AM
To: [USPF] 'Steve Denison' (e-mail redacted)
Dear Mr. Denison, Thank you for your prompt response. No, I am not related to Big James, and I have no history in the sport of powerlifting. I am a frequent contributor for the website Wikipedia in the area of bench press. I have been trying to contact someone to verify Big James Henderson's current drug tested raw bench press record of 711. There doesn’t seem to be a specific page that addresses the lift specifically and its current significance. Many sites do not state if a lift was assisted and tested, which are important. What little I have been able to find out is the best source of powerlifting information is the USPF/PLF. Thank you so much for taking the time to do verify Big James Henderson’s current record still stands. The Wikipedia Bench press article is a difficult one to edit because of all the different organizations and regulations that come with the powerlifting world. I thought it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to publish the drug tested press of Big James alongside Mendy's 715. Please let me know if I can use your email as a Wikipedia fact reference. I am assuming you are the powerlifting authority currently recorded at the site If you don’t wish to be used as a reference, could you please refer me to another citable authority on drug-tested unassisted bench press records? I appreciate your solid explanation and look forward to hearing from you again.
From: [USPF] 'Steve Denison' (e-mail redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:08 PM
To: (e-mail redacted)
Here are several websites that mention Henderson's bench.

With the IPF you can always know a big lift was drug tested. It doesn't need to say it. You are welcome to use my email.
Steve Denison
Email: (e-mail redacted)
661-333-9800 cell
206-338-4371 K7 Fax

(undent)Here is why E-mails aren't good - I got an e-mail yesterday from Steve Denison saying that the world record was broken by Jim Fixx in 1973 and has never been broken since. And the prime minister of Malaysia also sent me an e-mail saying the same thing. And I've got three e-mails from three different world-leaders in physical fitness saying that the world record for benchpress is 900 pounds held by Sue Demiko, half-human, half-ant. Who do we believe? I've got five e-mails, you've only got one.

E-mails are inherently unverifiable, I see it as common sense, but just in case, I've brought it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#E-mail. The only way to verify is for you to hand out your e-mail address and password, they're self-published sources, mainstream information should be easy to verify anyway. I made a couple of changes to the e-mail - corrected the first weblink, bracketed the rest to shorten, redacted all e-mail addresses, posting them on a public website like wikipedia can lead to massive spamming (I think that's the rationale, every time I've ever seen an e-mail address posted, an admin redacts it very soon after). WLU (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to say first off that I congratulate Jeffrey Pierce Henderson on his energy, initiative, and commitment to Wikipedia in contacting Mr. Denison and getting his opinion. These are characteristics that Wikipedia can really use. Unfortunately, however, emails are not reliable sources for this kind of thing. As I am sure JPH can understand, people could pretend that that they had received emails from just about anybody, and claim anything they like. I personally don't doubt for a second that JPH is accurately reporting an email he has received. But unfortunately not everybody is so honest, and WP has to make rules to stop the bad apples from affecting the encyclopedia at large. Hence the rules that information we include has to have been published by RS, sources that have been checked by other eyes. But like I said, JPH, I hope you aren't discouraged, and will continue with to contribute with all the energy you evidently possess. --Slp1 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WLU, I think you can check the headers on an e-mail to see its origin like this user does User:Millosh/Permissions_from_Robert_Elsie. Since the e-mail is not the original source, I don’t think we have a verifiability issue. Steve has provided contact information. He has given permission to cite him in his e-mail and permission to contact him using pwrlftrs AT There is no doubt he is a representative of the International_Powerlifting_Federation. You can’t find a better third party reference for bench press records. He is definitely not a self-published source. More like the published professor of a peer-reviewed journal that specifically covers powerlifting. Also, Slp makes the statement that e-mails are not reliable sources, but RS has no bans on using emails. I found this Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive19#Emails.3F and it talks about using the OTRS system verifying if the email belongs to a USPF official like Mr. Denison. Maybe this should be considered further. After searching for examples of authors using e-mails as sources it was funny to find these: AIAW_Champions, History_of_wikis#_note-mail, and my favorite History_of_Wikipedia#_note-wikipedia-l-000671. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, JPH, but this really is an example of Original research. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." An email is not a reliable, published source. It is definitely self-published as there is no editorial oversight of what he has written, just as there is none in "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings" that are listed in the self-published part of the verifiability policy. It seems clear to me that emails would be a 'similar source' as mentioned there. Unfortunately, other people using emails on other articles is not a reason for doing so here. But let's focus on the real problem... you need a reliable source for this claim about Big James Henderson. Surely there is a report in a powerlifting magazine or a local newspaper about his accomplishment? Does the International_Powerlifting_Federation publish a list of records? Let's not fixate on the email and find a reliable source for the information. If it is important someone somewhere will have recognized the fact in a reliable source.Slp1 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
First off, an apology to JPH if I came across as mocking in my previous post, I'm sick and my communication skills are off. I used those examples in order to give the extreme version of using e-mails to verify, not to poke fun. I understand why you want to use e-mails as a source, but they just don't work. The entire thing is just a series of characters, and a dedicated fraudster can build such a display with enough time and malice. I'm not saying you are doing so JPH, but what applies to one article must apply to all. Also, consider that if people want to verify what Denison himself said, they would need to e-mail him. Given wikipedia's prominence, that could lead to thousands of e-mails each day, asking about this subject. Not something I want to dump on his head. Also, there must be other sources that cite these records - perhaps you could ask Denison about them? Magazines and newspapers are legit, so if they're there, even just in print, that works. One of the great advantages of having experts like Denison is that they should be aware of publications that document the records, so he may be a good person to ask about published sources. Basically echoing what Slp1 said. WLU (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


The article says "The world record for assisted bench press..." for example, but nowhere does it say what an "assisted bench press" is. I don't know - I was reading for interest - but it needs to be added for the record statements to make sense! Thanks Caseykcole (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Assisted is when what's laughingly called a "lifting shirt" is used. It's this big, wide strap-like thing that gets pulled onto the lifter, the main purpose of which - despite what anyone claims - is to do part of the work. Drug tested? How comprehensive are the drug tests? Why isn't it documented? I can't believe with all the pissiness that gets applied to other articles that this one is allowed to exist like this. The whole "world bench press record" issue is a joke. Bunch of roided-up clowns with big rubber bands helping them. I bet if they use a forklift they can really put up some big weights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsavage20 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Mendelson 715 lbs bench press : —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this video by Mark Rippetoe to the part at that top that talks about using a partner to spot the bench. It confirms the statement that using a partner is better when using heavier weights. JumboPickles (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is self-published, not a reliable source and would probably constitute original research. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 03:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)



If some of the records come down, shouldn't they all go? Why is the one form of lifting allowed and the others not? I say put them all over on the records area. That way I can unwatch this page and say goodbye to you guys forever. Hopefully. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason is simple - this is the article for the strength training exercise called the bench press. There's no need to add a long list of powerlifting "records" (the noteworthiness of some that I removed being questionable). This article does not require a list of every record for every possible bench press variation. --Quartet 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No need to get condescending. Shouldn't we then move all the records? You say we don't need a list of records, but you left one record on the page. Is there a reason why Wikipedia would want to keep that particular record as apposed to the others? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a case of the list being misnamed. There is only one record high at a time. The list that was moved appears to me to be more a list of milestones, or maybe a history of records and when they were set. As such I think we can either accommodate it here (as they have with several lists of firsts) or we can maintain one article and one list of firsts. Being only a list of 16 items I'm not sure it requires a list of it's own. What say others?
(FULL DISCLOSURE: I am currently Adopting Jeffrey Pierce Henderson but the views I express are my own.) Padillah (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The current World Record is all that is needed in this article - the same way the Bodybuilding article does not provide a year by year list of every Mr. Olympia winner - they only list the current title holder because there's a separate page that contains all of that information Readers who are interested in learning more about bench press world records can click through to the appropriate page. Again, this is the article for a strength training exercise, not the bench press powerlifting records article (of which there is already one on Wikipedia). Non noteworthy "records" like "Heaviest bench press without any equipment to assist" and it's "drug free" variation simply aren't required here. If we keep that "record" Are we going to ad "Heaviest bench press in the state of Dakota?" or "Heaviest bench press by a lifter born in Russia?" (for example) There's only one World Record in the bench press (two if you include the female equivalent - for which I'm looking for a source). Anything less than the World Record isn't really notable. If you wish to merge the two articles (this and the records) together so as to have all the information on one page, you should make your case for that, along with a request for an expert on the subject to clean up the records article and fill in the missing records. --Quartet 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it but Quartet, you are on the verge of 3RR. I recommend we stick to the talk page (that means both parties Jeffery) until we find a consensus. I appreciate your point of view and you are correct that Wikipedia is not a list of stats. That does not mean we can edit war over it. So let's step back and finish the consensus discussion first, then we can edit the article with a change everybody can support. Padillah (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edit of the records section back to the last edit of Yankees76 because I think we had a good consensus for the records section that lasted more than a few months. We have a record for the most weight using a bench shirt, a raw record for the most weight without drug-testing, the raw record recognized by the US Powerlifting Federation, Guinness Book of World Records, and USOC, and the womens bench shirt record. I don't think that four is too many to have on this page. They all are very different areas and all represent the different philosophies on this particular strength exercise. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for the records you've listed, only a long debate on a record by Big James Henderson. Can you point me to the consensus that shows these four records are the only ones noteworthy enough to be included here? I can't seem to find it.--Quartet 21:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we need a third opinion? If we do we need to explain that I am not a third party due to my adoption of Jeffery. Padillah (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we do. The 4 records above appear to be random. Why a raw record for the most weight with and without drug-testing for men, but no equivalent for women? Why a raw record at all? And why not a drug tested but assisted record for both men and women? The more I think about this, the more it appears that some of these records were added without a NPOV and for reasons other than to include a verifiable list of notable records - because there certainly was not a consensus on this.
To take an idea from a post further up this page, the sprint (race) article, which discusses the finer points of the sport also lists world bests for common distances for both men and women, however there are not Olympic records. There are also no records for people with physical or intellectual disabilities. There are no records by country or by meet. The same principle should be applied here. --Quartet 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
By the same token if there are accociations that track these types of things (like US Powerlifting Federation, Guinness Book of World Records, and USOC) it should be noted, or at least summarized in deference to the main article. OK, so 3O it is. There's nothing there now so this should be answered pretty quickly. Let's get a 3O statement ready. As I said, I'd normally do this but I shouldn't be considered impartial. Padillah (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Powerlifting has a huge number of federations - see this link [8] each with different rules on what shirts can be worn and wether or not drug testing is done. Are we prepared to include records from all of them? This is why I've removed the records that are there and have kept it simply "World's best". This way there's no debate, no argueing and using emails as sources, no special interest groups adding their own record holder - just the current record holder - the man and woman with the heaviest bench press.--Quartet 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally questioned the addition of one record earlier this year, and I still believe that particular record is too niche and was given undue weight. I think adding too many records to this page is the equivalent to putting home run records for switch hitters, left handed hitters, right handed hitters, white hitters, hispanic hitters and black hitters on the main baseball article. Instead of going into such depth that article merely states that In 2001, Barry Bonds established the current record of 73 home runs in a single season. I think this article should follow suit, with an equivalent article to the Progression of the single-season MLB home run record that can be used to break down historical records, records by federation, by country etc. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don’t agree that there should be only one record listed here. I am not sure if any records need to be listed here. But, if only one record is listed here, the record should be the raw record that is currently recognized by the International Powerlifting Federation and the Guinness Book of World Records. The article is about the bench press exercise, and records on the page should be bench press records, and not about bench press records under the influence of with extra lifting equipment and/or drugs. An extra lifting equipment or drug induced record would be more appropriate on a page that describes the specific extra lifting equipment or drugs that were used. I disagree that the four records that were listed here were random. I will try to articulate the differences one more time, and I apologize for my failure to do this better before.
  • Bench press with extra equipment- This record should stay because there are a group of people who believe that they need equipment to protect them from injury. The negative side of posting this record is that the use of this equipment adds a 50% increase on the weight that a normal man can lift without the special suit.
  • Bench press within a reasonably recognized governing body- This record should stay because it is the record that meets all of Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability. This is important because the foundation of the bench press exercise, like many beautiful things in this world, is entrenched in order. Within an organized body we can count more on a bench record being scrutinized from angles like the standards of the weights, the mechanics of what a bench press is, and the accuracy the of the lift judging.
  • Bench press outside the limits of a reasonably recognized governing body- This record should stay because there is a group of lifters who believe that they should be allowed to focus on just lifting and not be bound to regulations that define what a bench press is, organizations that verify everyone follows the rules, and enjoy the incentives that usually come when there is no regulation and organization.
  • I think our finest work has already been completed here. The women’s record should never have been taken down, and I am glad to see it’s already back up.
As far as Quartet reverting my revert, I just want to clarify, for my sake, that the procedure for gaining consensus is talking it out here. Let’s not get into trouble with the 3 revert rule by continuing the reverts. As for some of the questions, there are raw records and lift suit records in and out of organized governing powerlifting bodies for women. It would be a good thing for Wikipedia authors to look for those. I am sorry to say that I have no interest in that work here because of my past experience on this entry. I just want to make sure that my edit stays as long as it is verifiable and the documentation gets full consideration. Quartet’s argument about physical and intellectual disabilities ruling out certain records would exclude all but the bench press record within a reasonably recognized governing body. When Yahkee76's argument that Barry Bonds hitting home runs should be the only record, when applied here, would also exclude all but the bench press record within a reasonably recognized governing body because all other home runs outside MLB cannot be truly verified. There is a large number of so called federations but only one is recognized by the International Olympic Committee and the Guinness Book of World Records. That Federation is the IPF. See here List of international sport federations I think if we are leaving only one record up and taking down the rest, we should keep only IPF records. They are an international organization so they are the only true ‘world record’ keepers. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
But what makes those "records" beyond the world records set by Ryan Kennelly and Becca Swanson you outline above notable enough to be included in a general article on bench press - the exercise? Why present general readers who are coming here interested in learning the finer points of bench pressing with a confusing list of bench press "records" when there is no reasonable explanation of what Raw benching is or why one record is there while others aren't? If we take your recommendation and put only records that are not "under the influence of extra lifting equipment and/or drugs", we imply that Kennelly and Swanson are drug users who's records, despite being hundreds of pounds heavier are not credible. That's a position that is clearly not of a neutral point of view and is original research. To take some text from your talk page posted by another editor "The original research is in the division and qualification of records based on a personal assessment of their worth - this record is OK because there was drug testing, this one is not because he wore a bench shirt, this one is OK because of the location and the observers and this one is not good because of X other criteria. If the reliable sources qualifies links in this manner we can report it, but we can not ourselves point to different records as better, worse, a record or not, based on our own personal assessment." There's also no section that explains drug tested federations vs. non drug tested. Canvas bench shirts, poly shirts, denim shirts, single ply, double ply or how they affect records. For a general article on an exercise the world record, which is the univerisally recognized as the heaviest bench press ever acheived by a human male or female is all the casual Wikipedia reader would reasonably expect and understand - and why there's an article that delves further into this topic where shirted, shirtless, drug tested, non-tested, reverse grip, European, North American, Asian, Australian, bodyweight coefficients etc. etc. etc. records can be kept.
Another point - swimming records are not broken down by what records where achieved wearing no suit and by those wearing the Speedo LZR Racer, yet it's also been shown that the LZR Racer holds the body in a more hydrodynamic position and allows for better oxygen flow to the muscles and is universally recognized as enhancing performance. Not that dissimilar to a bench shirt - and yet swimming records listed are the fastest overall - not by who wore what suit or no suit at all. Nor are they listed based on rule changes to the sport. For example, we don't list Victor Davis 2:13.34 200m breastroke record from 1984 as a record alongside Ryan Lochte's 1:53.94 current world record because Lochte set his with an advanced swimsuit that made him faster and also used a dolphin kick at the start and at each turn; while Davis set his shirtless with just swim trunks during a time when dolphin kicks during turns where illegal.
Let me be blunt. I'm not discrediting any of the inforation you've posted as consideration for another article, as there is no reason why the Progression of the bench press world record can't be as in-depth as some of the records articles for other sports, but for the purpose of this article putting the verifiable record for the world's heaviest bench press - as that is what a record is - the most lifted regardless of organization, style or affiliation - is all that should required. The "most" are the records held by Ryan Kennelly and Becca Swanson, not by Scot Mendelson, Andrzej Stanaszek, Rick Weil, Irina Krylova or Roberta Collins. --Quartet 14:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, so it looks like we've effectivly seperated out that THE record will be here and all the records will be at the newly minted and desperate for attention Progression of the bench press world record. Now on to which record should be here and which not. I have a very simplistic, uninformed, disinterested view - I think the records marked by the Guinness Book of World Records be the ones listed here. For no other reason than those are the records most uninformed people trust and look to for being an authority on records. It's also pretty well understood that Guinness has technical terms for setting a "record" and the "true best performance" may not be recognised by Guinness for some technical reason or another. So, as a "working mans" record book, I put my support behind Guinness. Padillah (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I support using Ryan Kennelly's and the Becca Swanson record. Records are broken too frequently for Guinness to be of use in this case as meets take place all the time. One problem I had with some of the original records in this article was one was using the 1999 Guinness Book of World Records as a source, which had a record set in 1997. In this sport records are set nearly every year - and we run the risk of being outdated. Also for sports records, Guinness tends to be a bit of a joke with useless records like "Bench Press, Most Weights In One Hour" [9] which make it hard to take it seriously. I think the record should be the heaviest of any of the world powerlifting federations current record (Global Powerlifting Committee, International Powerlifting Federation, World Drug-Free Powerlifting Federation, World Powerlifting Association, World Powerlifting Organization and World Powerlifting Congress. Currently Kennelly and Swanson are recognized by the World Powerlifting Organization's as having their bench press record, and it is higher than any of the other world federations recognized records.[10] --Yankees76 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have reached a 'limit' on the length of this article. I have seen pages on here load at a snail's pace because they are so long. this article is no where near complete. I support a section on describing different equipment and drugs used to assist working out as long as it is brief and links to an article that goes into more detail. I have looked at Quartet's work and see he has knowledge in that area. Why can't we explain to others what makes a lift raw? Why can't we teach them what a lifting shirt is? Both of those questions have appeared on this talk page by readers who came to the talk area for answers. See above. Maybe we take the challenge and answer them with additions to the article? I don't support Mendy's record and Ryan's lift being removed. Their efforts are highly notable. But, I will support any consensus we come to. Maybe I will think of a way to get their titanic feats listed somewhere else with a link from the bench press site. We cannot allow this idea to continue that natural records are the exception. They are the original, and most notable, and they recognized as such. To use an argument by someone earlier on the page, if a person uses a forklift to help him get the weight up, is that the new bench press record? No. Raw and drug tested by a reputable and recognized organization is the record that should not be removed. But, contrary to Quartet's representation of my argument, I didn't suggest that we take out Becca and Kennelly. My suggestion is to put them all back. They should have never been removed. The entry should be returned to its prior state. If you want to find the womens' raw record holder with the uspf/ipf, I support putting that up, too. I am not interested in demoting anyone's accomplishments. As long as we have evidence of the lift, we should list it. Quartet’s idea that the swimming suits are a similar issue does not hold water. The swimming suit, to my limited knowledge, does NOT do the swimming for you. The lifting shirt LIFTS the weight for the athlete. I think Quartet made an excellent point that Powerlifting has a huge number of federations each with different rules. We shouldn’t follow Yankees76’s suggestion and pick only one of those. Yankees76 train of thought leads us to the heaviest no matter what. The problem with that is once you get out of a set of rules defining what a lift is, you have Wikipedia defining what a lift is and that is original research. For example, if we use the Mendy or Kennelly lift, Wikipedia will have defined that a bench press lift doesn’t have to pause on the chest, be judged by trusted officials, and doesn’t need to be drug tested. We don’t want to get into splitting hairs. The best way, really, is to use the oldest and most respected organizations as our ruler of what the heaviest raw lift is. That way we bypass the trouble of seeming biased. I mean if we show the Guinness record here, who can really argue? Yankee76’s argument that the bench records are broken every year is not true. In fact he proves himself wrong in his next statement after that one. He says the record was broken in 1997 but between that time and it being reprinted in 2000, it is still the record. The fact is that raw bench press records are rarely broken. According to Guinness and the USPF/IPF, James’s raw record still stands. Contact either one of those organizations for the information, and they will tell you the same. Citing your source is not an OR issue. Yankees76’s argument that we should pick the heaviest of all the organizations listed has another flaw. What is to pervert someone from developing their own organization tomorrow and listing a new record? With his suggested rule, Wikipedia would have to list it. That is actually the case here. The Powerlifting Federation is the oldest. Other organizations have sprung up after the IPF and came up with their own rules and regulations. Lifters have their own reasons for not completing in the IPF, and I don’t want to apply motive to these athletes. I think the best point that Wikipedia can make here is that this is the ‘Bench Press’ article, and not the ‘Assisted Bench Press’ article. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

TLDR. There should be sources for the records. Unsourced records can be removed without qualification per WP:PROVEIT. If there's a separate page for world records, they should really be moved pretty much all there, then there is here a link in see also, possibly a main somewhere in the article, and if we're really stretching it, a brief summary of notable milestones. This page should be about bench press in general, not an extensive discussion of world records. There is already a page for that. We shouldn't be listing "without bench shirt", "not drug tested", etc. It should be the world record, that's kinda it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WLU. I will not remove the revert by Quartet because I want to make sure we don't get personal, but I think the sources he has listed for his article edit do not meet the standards we want to keep. Does anyone know any information about Pride Powerlifting? Are they just a self-published website, or they actually one of the many organizations? My favorite quote on their site is "Ryan Kennelly has set another insane all time record. After cutting weight and weighing in at 306 pounds, he benched an awesome 985 lbs! Because there is always controversy around all-time records Ryan Kennelly was weighed in front of 4 witnesses..." ROTFLOL Four witnesses? WOW! That is a bit short of what we need here, right? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"He has listed for his article?" Please explain. I've barely worked on that article let alone added any sources from "Pride Powerlifting". Please stay on topic. Kennelly and Swanson's records are the heaviest weights that any humans have lifted at a sanctioned meet regardless of federation, testing, equipment or any other conditions. The inclusions of any other records to this article don't belong. --Quartet 21:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
An explanation should be quite easy: use all the words. What was typed was "...but I think the sources he has listed for his article edit do not meet the standards we want to keep.". Or, if you want to employ a little faith he could simply have mistyped "...he has listed for this article edit...". Either way it should be plain to see he is referring to the edit, not making some veiled slight at you about WP:OWN. I hope that helps. Padillah (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Back on topic: I don't think it should be pure weight that determines record. It should have some backing from a governing body to be declared the "World Record" otherwise it's OR on our part. I don't think anyone would recommend including bald claims with no backing in the article. Padillah (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where some of you guys are coming from. If we are going to keep this free of records then we have to ask how are we going to defend against AfD for WP:NOTE? You gotta admit, the exercise in and of itself is not notable. The exercise has done nothing of note, it's the records that are notable. This could be merged into a general weightlifting article at this point. Padillah (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for any of Biceps curl, Leg curl, Calf raises, Pulldown exercise and Leg press articles too. However, I think several thousand bodybuilding articles in magazines such as FLEX, Ironman, MuscleMag, Muscle Media, and Muscular Development could establish the notability of the bench press as an exercise used to induce hypertrophy of the pectorals, deltoids and triceps. Not to mention it's use as a fitness evaluator in the NFL Scouting Combine.--Quartet 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It's use as a fitness evaluator would definitely establish notability. Some third-party has taken note of the exercise and uses performance in the exercise as a measure, that's good. Is this something we can source? Padillah (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Without doing a lot of research, this link [11] looks pretty solid for the NFL, and here's one [12] for the NHL. --Quartet 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Current discussion[edit]

We are currently discussing the edits and want to wait until we've decided what goes where. I do however agree with you that if James' record comes down, then they all have to come down. I just found a good article that discusses our edit dilemma pretty thoroughly. I have never denied contacting Steve Denison and James Henderson in order to get more informed on bench pressing. I do not have a business relationship with either of them. A simple call to either one of them will clear that up. Both of their numbers are easily attainable. I agree with Quartet that we should stick to the issues. The issue is, "what is a bench press?" Is it a bounce on the chest? If the answer is no, and looking at the article I see that the answer is no, then you remove the Kennelly and Mendy lift. Here is the link to the change Quartet made and he did in fact use pride powerlifting as his source. I apologize for saying that you cited the lift, when in fact it was who ever cited it before you and you just used their cite. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a separate article for the records. They aren't needed here. Also, those two sources are not reliable - the Michael Soong one is self-published, and not really suitable for world-records. The Pride Powerlifting, in addition to being of uncertain reliability and results, doesn't actually say "this is a world-record breaker". It's just a listing of results. There's no indication that it's a final one, exceeds a previous one, or that it's noteworthy at all.
Per the Talk page guidelines section headings, I've removed my id from the section heading. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Soong is not self published - these records were published in Powerlifting USA magazine. PL USA publishes historical records of the bench press, squat and deadlift on a monthly basis in each issue - all compiled by Soong. I doubt anyone will argue that PL USA is not a reliable source. --Yankees76 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Mike Lambert's Powerlifting USA is arguably THE definitive source for this issue. I will try to find a library nearby with some old copies. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a few from this year. Each month has the records of a different lift/weight class. As far as I can tell Soongs PDF that was used is exactly the same as what's in PL USA.--Yankees76 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

JPH - aren't you the webmaster for Big James Henderson? You said you were.[13] Either way I'm going to follow WLU and say we remove all records. Keep this as a weightlifting/bodybuilding exercise article and leave the powerlifting aspect to training techniques and other relevant info.--Quartet 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have declared earlier, I have no interest in promoting the site of and not interested in any accomplishments beyond the facts. Please take care in not WP:OUTING me. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Don`t you think if you`re in a content dispute over content that involves an individual that you have a personal affiliation with, all parties involved should be aware of this WP:CONFLICT so that we can avoid avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines especially neutral point of view? Knowing this information explains some of the motivations behind some of the arguments above regarding what records should be kept - especially when it`s stated that the records listed should be the unassisted drug tested record and not bench press records under the influence of or attained with extra lifting equipment and/or drugs, which of course would mean that only the record of the person you have an affiliation with would be listed. Also, since you`ve voluntarily posted this information already and it`s still visible on your talk page I don`t believe that WP:OUT applies here. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a conflict of interest here. I have no personal affiliation with anyone in this article outside of Wikipedia. My first priority will always be the core content policies of Wikipedia. I consider these accusations seriously, and will continue to only make edits that are easily verifiable and from a neutral point of view. Yankees76 argument is that I contacted the person prior to the edit when it is in fact the other way around. I made the edit because the record is well known, and I was understandably asked to cite my source. It was then that I made contact with the USPF the IPF and the record holder in order to receive help in citing my source. This relationship does not constitute a [[WP:COI]. It is discouraging to see this discussion focus more on broad accusations of motivation and less on verifiable content. I understand the concern over a possible WP:COI edit, but I must ask a second time not to continue WP:OUTING me as a fellow editor. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think our concerns were legitimate. And I didn't WP:OUT you. On User_talk:Jeffrey_Pierce_Henderson#Image_source_problem_with_Image:Bighen.jpg you volunteer the information that you're the webmaster for Big James Henderson and have collaborated with him on two different posts. I have a WP:COI concern because above you've made a strong case for the sole inclusion of records recognized by the IPF and Guinness Book of World records and for unassisted and drug free records, which would leave only the 1997 lift by Big James Henderson for men, ignoring heavier, verifiable lifts by other powerlifters. It's hard to WP:AFG and see the above arguments as neutral knowing this information, and it make me believe that the positions presented by myself and others for the sole inclusion of the world record heaviest overall bench press were for nothing.
I think this discussion got off topic though, as it seems our consensus is that no records will be posted here - and it's probably for the best. I'm going to close this discussion, as it's no longer related to improving the bench press article.--Quartet 15:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I gotta ask, why was this closed? Has everybody finished talking about what record, if any, we feel is best kept in the article? I see it went off-topic but that just means bring it back on-topic, not shut it down. As far as AGF regarding webmasters of weightlifter sites, I'd agree with you if what was being proposed was that "James Hendersons record be kept because he's the best". That's not what is being suggested, it was suggested by me that the most widely accepted record establishing federation (Guinness) be used here and the rest can be expounded on at the detail article. The question to ask is "Is the suggestion out of reason?" The answer should be "No", it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to want to list the Guinness record for pedestrian access. It's arguably the most widely accepted record establishing federation on the planet, why would wanting it's record listed be considered out of course? Padillah (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the Guinness "record" is about 200-300 lbs. lighter than at least 11 other verifiable lifts. Even the most novice user would see the Guinness "record" posted here, do a search in Google and pull up numerous other reliable sources and video evidence of people performing bigger lifts. How do you explain Guinness having a record of 714 lbs. being more of an authority of powerlifting than a magazine called Powrlifting USA that lists the record at 1075 lbs.? What's in the Guinness Book of World records is a lift followed by a small minority of powerlifters and powerlifting fans and is not the universally recognized world record.
I think we should just remove all records from this article as appears to be supported by WLU and Quartet. A bench press exercise article doesn't need a laundry list of record setting lifts, and from my perspective, we're not going to be able to agree on one single record to add because some individuals feel that the world record is the heaviest overall lift, while others want to preserve an old edit to put in a record set by their friend. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I closed it because the original discussion is above under "Records" (just above the question mark that says unresolved). This new section was opened to address why WLU removed the records and degenerated into a COI debate which wasn't improving the article.
For the record I also think we should remove all the records. We have a well-sourced article that User:Yankees76 appears to have spent considerable time sourcing that does the job with regards to records. This article is about an exercise - and doesn't need any WP:FANCRUFT --Quartet 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If this is not the place to discuss this, fair enough. I had posted above but hadn't received a response for over 4 days so I started to wonder. Padillah (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just figured out how to go back years in the article history. The bench press record has been in the article pretty much since the beginning. Here it is Taking out the record would be a shame. The reason there is a difference in the Guinness record and lifts sanctioned by less notable organizations is that there are different rules on what technique constitutes a lift, if equipment is allowed to aid the lifter, and if performance enhancing drugs are tested for. If you take away all rules and judging, then anyone can claim the record. Aaron's home run record does not include the home runs he hit in the negro leagues. Josh Gibson is not the HR record holder. You can't just go out to your local gym, alert the media and complete the lift. It has to be judged by an existing set of regulations. What is a lift? Is there a pause on the chest? Can the athlete use legs to push? Can they be on drugs? Who tests? How often? Who weighs the official plates that were used? Does it have to be a standard bench? Are you allowed to put bungee cords under your lifting shirt? When is the lift complete? Lucky for us there is already an organization, recognized by the world, that takes care of all there rules and regulations. The argument is simple. If you want to be considered the greatest quarterback of all time, you compete in the NFL, the highest governing body of that sport. Powerlifting and other sports like it have International Federations and that fact should be recognized here. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The World Record, and the progression of lifts that have been reported by reliable sources as world records is a click away. The above argument does not make a strong case to re-include any records. Adding every world record to this article that is deemed the "world record" by the editors in this discussion and by different powerlifting federations is more fancruft than anything and is more likely to distract or confuse a non-fan while the exclusion of these records will not significantly harm the factual coverage of the exercise called the bench press as a whole. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we come up with a better introduction to the records?[edit]

OK, It looks like we are going to follow the swimming articles and have the progression of records in a separate article. However, can we find a better introduction to the world record article than an empty section with a "Main article" link? Maybe something about the numerous powerlifting associations and their record keeping bodies. Something along those lines. Padillah (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure - go ahead. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, and if I didn't blow hairy chunks as a copy writer, I'd do it. As it is, I think I'd do better suggesting something here and letting it get cleaned up first. So how about we start with:

Bench press world records are the international records in bench press across the years, regardless of weight class or governing organization, since the birth of modern powerlifting. These records are for bench pressing on the back without using a bridge technique. With the advent of bench press shirts, which support the lifter's shoulders and provide upward force, records have increased significantly.

And yes, I stole it from the referenced article. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Padillah (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think some editors will ask for a more robust introduction. Maybe a quick bit on the history of the bench press in competition, from the early days of the belly toss in the 30's leading up to modern bench pressing with supershirts - one paragraph tops. I will try to add something tomorrow or when I get some free time. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pic shows suicide grip[edit]

The picture shows a soldier using a suicide grip. It would be a shame if someone sees this picture and drops a bar on their throat as a result. Perhaps we should show a picture of the thumb wrapped around the bar which is safer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Info.[edit]

Under "Variations"

  1. An incline elevates the shoulders and lowers the pelvis as if reclining in a chair; this variation emphasizes posterior deltoids.
  2. A decline bench press elevates the pelvis and lowers the head, and emphasizes the pectoralis major while removing shoulder strain making it the safest and most effective form of bench press.

Highlighted in bold are both so very, very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Under the Possible Injuries heading, it reads "Hernias may occur if one bench presses too much weight, without the use of a weight belt." This is not correct. If anything, use of a belt increases the likelihood of hernia, as it serves to increase intra-abdominal pressure.Bigpinksocks (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge of Dumbbell bench-press[edit]

The article on Dumbbell_Bench-press is mostly a how-to manual, and the objective information about performing the exercise is already covered in the bench press article. If the advantages and disadvantages can be credibly sourced, they should be added to the dumbbell bench section under variations of the bench press. (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Since it's been almost a year, I'm going to go ahead and merge.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Lats used as stabiliser[edit]

The lats are a huge stabilising muscle in the bench press, shouldn't this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potsmoker88 (talkcontribs) 09:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Floor press?[edit]

It might be worthwhile to mention the floor press in the "Variations" section too. Alialiac (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)