You can argue and say "Wiggs it's not official the guy had his hand on the bar" your right but if you look at his hands after he spotted me he goes👌 as in he didn't help. Anyway, I have done 425 when I was 23 and on no sauce and no assistance. And in this video, I was on clean for years.
Point is, I don't consider myself elite. Larry Wheels is elite. Tom Wishbones is elite. Me then, I was strong. I've also squatted 605 I was fat as fuck then and it felt like I had the world on my back but I did it. Also, clean. One thing to note though, I have short arms and legs and longer torso. I've never maxed deadlifted in my life.
These are 1 rep maxes. I did that 405 after coming back to the gym after a 4 month lay off. I was still young at 27.
I'd love to objectively parameterize these things, but of course that is difficult to do.
Your lifts are or were in the top 1% of the top 1%, Wiggs.
Let's say - somewhere between the top 0.1% and top 0.01%.
I get that you are basically calling something elite if they are the best in the world, but I am calling something elite if it's better than 99.9% of the population.
I'd probably say:
225-lb bench press = strong.
315-lb bench press = very strong.
405-lb bench press = very, very strong [to me, this is "elite" because it is the top 1% of the top 1%].
But I get that it's hard to have exact and specific, objective standards.
If a 225-lb bench press is strong, what us a 220-lb bench press, for instance?
I think maybe we have a tendency to compare ourselves to the strongest people in the world, where I'm saying we should be comparing ourselves to the general population.
I get it - Brian Shaw, Ed Coan, and Larry Wheels, etc, are stronger than you. But is that really the standard we should go by?
Bertil Fox is considered to have had one of the strongest upper bodies in all of bodybuilding history, and he only had about 100-lb on your bench press. So if your lifts aren't elite, they are definitely way up there.
My thing is that I always want to put objective definitions to terms. I much prefer facts than opinions. Also, consider: all science is subjectively objective. We need to draw lines in the sand somewhere, and make definitions, by definition, definite.
I try to deal with objective facts because I think chaos is created when we deviate from it. And for me in particular, it's worse than for most.
I want objective standards and facts. And people lie so damn much. At least you prove your claims. Most on here do not.
If you don't want to call your lifts elite, they are at the least, very, very strong.