Ask any seasoned powerlifting enthusiast about the greatest of all time, and Ed Coan’s name will undoubtedly surface. For decades, Coan has been the gold standard, the epitome of powerlifting excellence. However, the landscape of powerlifting is ever-evolving, and a new force has emerged from the United States, rewriting records and challenging the established order: John Haack. Haack’s meteoric rise through the 198lb and 220lb weight classes has positioned him as a modern icon in powerlifting. In this analysis, we delve into the careers of both Coan and Haack to determine who truly deserves the title of the greatest powerlifter of all time, with a spotlight on the remarkable achievements of John Haack.
Analyzing Powerlifting Greatness: Coan vs. Haack
Comparing powerlifters across different eras and weight classes requires a nuanced approach. Powerlifting isn’t simply about lifting the heaviest weight; it’s about context. Weight classes and equipment rules significantly impact performance. An 800lb squat with a supportive suit is a different feat than an 800lb raw squat. Similarly, a 500lb bench press at 198lbs bodyweight speaks volumes compared to the same lift at 220lbs.
Beyond these factors, we must also consider individual physiological advantages. Shorter arm length can be advantageous in the bench press due to a reduced range of motion. Conversely, taller athletes might face challenges in the squat due to the increased distance the weight needs to travel. While acknowledging these genetic predispositions, our primary focus will remain on quantifiable metrics like equipment usage and weight class performance to fairly assess the supremacy of Ed Coan and John Haack. We will examine their performance across the three powerlifts: the squat, bench press, and deadlift, with a particular emphasis on John Haack’s accomplishments.
The Squat Showdown
Ed Coan: 962 lbs @ 220lb
John Haack: 750 lbs @ 198lb
Initially, Coan’s numbers seem to dominate. However, a closer look reveals crucial details. Coan achieved his 962lb squat utilizing a single-ply squat suit and knee wraps – equipment that significantly enhances squat performance. Knee wraps alone can add approximately 15% to a lifter’s one-rep max (1RM). To create a more equitable comparison, we need to adjust Coan’s squat to reflect a raw equivalent.
Deducting a conservative 15% to 20% from Coan’s equipped squat brings his raw equivalent to between 770 lbs and 818 lbs. Even using the more generous 15% deduction, resulting in 818lbs, the comparison becomes incredibly tight.
Let’s analyze strength relative to bodyweight. Coan, at a calculated raw equivalent of 818lbs, squatted roughly 3.7lbs per pound of bodyweight. John Haack, squatting 750lbs at 198lbs, achieves a ratio of 3.8lbs per pound of bodyweight. This puts Haack and Coan neck and neck in terms of relative squat strength.
Furthermore, John Haack employs a high bar squat technique, which is widely considered more challenging. The higher bar position and narrower stance in high bar squats increase the range of motion and demand greater mobility and core strength. Coan, conversely, utilized a low bar squat, a mechanically advantageous technique that reduces the distance the weight travels. This difference in technique further strengthens Haack’s case in this comparison.
While Coan’s raw-equivalent squat is undeniably impressive, even with equipment assistance, the sheer weight of 962lbs on one’s back is a monumental feat. The balance, core strength, and neurological control required to stabilize nearly 1000lbs for an extended period are extraordinary. Acknowledging this immense strength and the undeniable visual impact of such massive weight, we can concede the squat category to Coan, albeit with a very narrow margin, especially when considering John Haack’s bodyweight and squatting style.
Bench Press Battle
Ed Coan: 584 lbs @ 220lb
John Haack: 580 lbs @ 198lb
The bench press comparison is remarkably straightforward. Both Coan and Haack achieved these lifts raw, without bench shirts or elbow wraps. They are essentially matched in absolute weight lifted, with only a 4lb difference. However, John Haack performed his 580lb bench press at a significantly lighter bodyweight of 198lbs, compared to Coan’s 220lbs.
This weight difference gives Haack a clear advantage in relative strength. Haack benched approximately 2.9lbs per pound of bodyweight, while Coan benched 2.7lbs per pound. Why this slight edge for Haack despite similar absolute numbers?
A key factor is likely limb length. Ed Coan is known for having exceptionally long arms, a biomechanical disadvantage in the bench press. Longer arms necessitate a greater bar path, requiring more work and energy to complete the lift. While John Haack doesn’t possess unusually short arms, they are proportionally shorter than Coan’s. This difference in leverage, coupled with John Haack’s elite bench press prowess – placing him among the likes of Julius Maddox in bench press specialists – gives him the victory in this lift.
The Deadlift Decider
Ed Coan: 901lb @ 220lb
John Haack: 887lbs @ 198lb
In the deadlift, John Haack again emerges victorious when considering relative strength. While Ed Coan deadlifted 14lbs more in absolute weight, Haack once again performed his lift at 22lbs lighter bodyweight.
Calculating relative strength, Coan deadlifted 4.1lbs per pound of bodyweight, a truly exceptional feat. However, John Haack surpasses this, pulling an astonishing 4.5lbs per pound of bodyweight. This difference is even more impressive considering the deadlift styles of each athlete. Coan utilizes the sumo deadlift, a technique that shortens the range of motion, potentially allowing for heavier weights. John Haack, in contrast, pulls conventional, a style generally considered to have a longer range of motion and potentially be more demanding on the back and hamstrings. Height differences are not a significant factor here, solidifying John Haack’s superior deadlift strength relative to bodyweight.
Conclusion: The Crown of Powerlifting
Ed Coan takes the squat in this close comparison, primarily due to the sheer magnitude of weight moved, while John Haack demonstrably wins in both the bench press and deadlift categories when considering relative strength. Looking at their overall powerlifting totals further solidifies this assessment.
Using a raw-equivalent squat for Coan (818lbs), his total would be approximately 2303lbs at 220lbs bodyweight. John Haack’s total at 198lbs is 2217lbs. While Coan’s absolute total is higher, the crucial factor is again bodyweight.
Coan’s total, relative to bodyweight, is approximately 10.5lbs per pound. John Haack’s total, however, reaches an astounding 11.2lbs per pound of bodyweight. This metric paints a clear picture: John Haack is, pound-for-pound, the stronger powerlifter.
Nostalgia often clouds judgment, and the legendary status of Ed Coan is well-deserved. However, objective analysis of the numbers and context reveals that John Haack has not only matched but surpassed Coan in key strength metrics. For those who believe Ed Coan’s records are untouchable, it’s time to acknowledge the rise of John Haack. At only 28 years old, John Haack is entering his prime powerlifting years, with the potential to achieve even greater feats. The powerlifting world eagerly anticipates what this modern marvel will accomplish next, as he continues to solidify his place as a true legend and potentially, the greatest powerlifter of all time.
