HULC -Ninjaworm7555 - OP, are you serious or just retarded?
Go away, adults are talking.
Bahahahah!
Bahahahah!
If you're squatting with a glute and ham emphasis the wider stance helps. Also if you're training beginners and they have mobility issues like tight hamstrings or limited ankle dorsiflexion it's easier to get them to maintain a good posture with a wider stance. A lot of people with these kind of issues are very quad dominant with under developed glutes so the wider stance is doubly beneficial.
Just my two cents, I'm not a pro or anything.
Once again, 'powerlifting squats' don't necessarily equate to a wider stance than used with a standard highbar squat.
Leigh -HULC -I was responding directly to a post that used dead lifting as an example. But it is obvious squatting could be substituted. <br><br>Jumping is jumping, pushing is pushing, not squatting. And they are usually done unilaterally. Trying to mimic your sport in the weight room is a flawed concept. I know Taku agrees with me on this. You are simply trying to build strength, nothing more.<br><br>Studies show that plyometrics aren't very useful for trampolining, due to different contact times. That is an example of how little carry over there is from training similar movements <img src="/images/phone/droid.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>Leigh - I fully recognise that someone who deadlifts 580 may be stronger in a particular sport than a guy who pulls 600. However, I think the heavier weight contributes in other ways, like connective tissue, grip, midsection etc
Well the discussion is about squats rather than deadlifts.
But if jumping, standing up against resistance, pushing opponents, etc, involve your lower body muscles in a certain way, then a move that trains those muscles in a similar way will probably give the best value for money as far as training goes. So training to maximise your ability to squat with a wide stance would be less useful than spending time accustoming your body to squatting in a way you will most likely be using it.
I'm not talking about a skill transfer (beyond a basic level anyway) or mimicking sports in the weight room.
Squatting in a powerlifting style moves the squat away from being a knee dominant movement to being a more generalised lower body movement. As such, i think it undermines the point of doing them for athletic development. If you want to strengthen your posterior chain - and by this i mean add muscle or make other positive structural changes, not just skill improvements - then i think there are better exercises. Squats should be done to strengthen your ability to do knee dominant movements. You can add the sports specific training at any time to turn these general structural adaptations into specific performance improvements.
http://www.exrx.net/Kinesiology/Torque.html#anchor233971
If you're not a powerlifter, i don't see any reason to squat in a powerlifting style.
Invisible Lats Syndrome - Also if you're training beginners and they have mobility issues like tight hamstrings or limited ankle dorsiflexion it's easier to get them to maintain a good posture with a wider stance. A lot of people with these kind of issues are very quad dominant with under developed glutes so the wider stance is doubly beneficial.
Just my two cents, I'm not a pro or anything.
I'm not either (a pro that is), just talking out loud about a subject that interests me.
Ankle dorsiflexion is a good point, but in that case i think the priority should be to improve the ankle ROM before loading up the squats. The hamstring flexibility one seems odd to me, in what way does a bodybuilding style squat rely on hamstring flexibility?
Squatdog -I think all of the photos you posted show weights (ie people) being lifted in a deadlift style manner. If you want to lift something from your feet, then a deadlift is more applicable than any style of squatting.
/facepalm
Funnily enough i thought saying that lifting up a person lying at your feet is closer to a deadlift than a squat would be one of the least controversial things i said on this thread. Strange what people decide to pick fault with.
I think powerlifters use a PL or sumo squat mainly for two very important reasons:
1. It reduces the distance the bar must travel.
2. It allows geared lifters to better utilize the additional stretch reflex(rebound) that a squat suit gives a lifter coming out of the hole. 
HULC -Invisible Lats Syndrome - Also if you're training beginners and they have mobility issues like tight hamstrings or limited ankle dorsiflexion it's easier to get them to maintain a good posture with a wider stance. A lot of people with these kind of issues are very quad dominant with under developed glutes so the wider stance is doubly beneficial.
Just my two cents, I'm not a pro or anything.
I'm not either (a pro that is), just talking out loud about a subject that interests me.
Ankle dorsiflexion is a good point, but in that case i think the priority should be to improve the ankle ROM before loading up the squats. The hamstring flexibility one seems odd to me, in what way does a bodybuilding style squat rely on hamstring flexibility?
As always fixing mobility issues is a priority, but I have found that for some people dorsiflexion ROM seems limited structurally and they just don't benefit from any of the dorsiflexion stretching/mobility stuff.
Regarding hamstrings, I see people with tight hamstrings and hip flexors struggle to maintain posture with narrower stances. Could be by virtue of the fact that the bar is travelling a shorter distance for wider stances (maybe why powerlifters use it) and as a result it requires less of a hip and hamstring ROM.
My experience isn't with dedicated strength athletes or anyone at an elite level. If a wide stance squat is all they can do, then that's fine as a big compound movement and a platform to build off from. Especially as a lot of these sorts of people have shitty glute/hamstring strength, and it's hits those more than a narrow stance.
Maybe a narrow stance or the olympic lifts would suit them better, those are good things for them to work towards in terms of technique, activation and mobility but they got to crawl before they can walk. Especially as for some people there's quite a big investment needed in technique or correcting their physical problems before they can get to it.
Ok, I think I understand your point although I disagree. I think low bar squats are still going to blast your legs
It puts a LOT more emphasis on the posterior chain.
jason73 - its still up one the oneFC youtube page
Yeah, it was private earlier though.
Squatdog - Lowbar squats are a sports-specific variation that enables a greater weight mainly through a shortened range of motion and maximising the effect of various powerlifting paraphernalia.
For general populations and athletes, they are generally sub-optimal compared to conventional highbar squats.
LOL I don't know where you are getting this data.
So moving the bar 2 inches up your back makes you better at sports?
Squatdog - Lowbar squats are a sports-specific variation that enables a greater weight mainly through a shortened range of motion
Now hold on a second-- for a low-bar squatter to get to parallel, angle of the torso becomes more acute relative to the thighs in order to stay balanced compared with high-bar position. By definition, that more acute angle means a greater range of motion for the joints with low-bar, even if the bar path distance is the same. Here is the popular Rippetoe diagram that shows this:
So, I'm thinking you are mixing up range of motion with bar path distance. If you had been talking about range of motion AND bar distance in comparing parallel vs ass-to-grass, you would have had a valid point (since some people can go really deep with high-bar and narrow stance who cannot with a wider stance and low-bar position), but this was a discussion of high-bar parallel squats with low-bar parallel squats.
So if I conclude here, it looks to me like low-bar parallel squats allow greater weight to be lifted, and to be lifted in a greater range of motion, compared with high-bar parallel squats.
So moving the bar 2 inches up your back makes you better at sports?
Lowbar squats are specialised for one sport, namely Powerlifting.
(since some people can go really deep with high-bar and narrow stance who cannot with a wider stance and low-bar position),
Once again, Lowbar squats DON'T automatically equate to a wider stance. What part of this can you possibly not understand????
So if I conclude here, it looks to me like low-bar parallel squats allow greater weight to be lifted, and to be lifted in a greater range of motion, compared with high-bar parallel squats.
Holy shit you are dense.
ALL THREE of these squats are to parallel. The difference is that the lowbar squat starts from a much lower position, meaning it has less vertical distance to travel and is accommodated in the bottom position by the lifter leaning forward and essentially turning the movement into a Good Morning.
This is great if you are a powerlifter wearing an 8-inch belt and/or supersuit, not so much for everyone else.
I understood everything you wrote, and I was specifically addressing parallel squats-- I specifically chose that diagram because it showed the more acute angle of low-bar parallel squats compared with high-bar parallel squats (and incidentally, front squats). I made that perfectly clear, so if you missed it then it is your own reading comprehension that needs work. We all know the bar position and stance are two different things-- no one (including me) has implied that low-bar squats automatically equate to a wide stance, and you miss this and continue to bring it up. Going ATG is easiest when combining narrow stance with high-bar position, and it's hardest with wide stance and low-bar position; narrow and low-bar and wide and high-bar are in-between. You also seem to have completely missed the point about bar path distance and range of motion where you were mistaken, though thank God you clarified about vertical bar path distance (a point I already made and you missed). Frankly, you either aren't reading well and are making all sorts of assumptions, or are unable or unwilling to understand, and so I'm not going to continue bothering, especially as you seem to be getting pretty worked up over a weight training discussion.
Going ATG is easiest when combining narrow stance with high-bar position,
What??????
The WHOLE POINT of using a wider stance is that it's easier to achieve a low position.
It's impossible to take anything you say seriously when you come out with stuff like this.
You also seem to have completely missed the point about bar path distance and range of motion where you were mistaken,
No, YOU were mistaken because you evidently failed to realise that lowbar squats are initiated with the bar in a much lower position (hence the name) and DON'T have an 'increased range of motion'.
ive never been able to high bar narro stance squat
hell, i dont think i can do it with a broom stick
never really tried high bar wide stance though
I don't have any good pictures online, but this is what my stance looks like:
As you can see, it's pretty fucking wide.
lol, okay it's pretty fucking wide. Actually not a bad picture, but please indulge me, what are you stating in posting it? I believed you the first time you said you squat high-bar and wide stance. OP and thread topic is arguing that feet out to the sides is pointless outside of powerlifting. I and most others in the thread are disagreeing and saying that wide stance still has general applicability for developing the body for sport purposes (rather than being powerlifting-specific only). Your stance is wide, so you must agree with most on this thread and disagree with OP regarding the main question of wide stance, right?
If you put it that way, yes.
I think the OP is confused as to what a 'powerlifting squat' actually entails.