But maybe it's not the question anyone should be asking
"Is it cheating to position your feet OUTSIDE of where your hands grip the bar in a deadlift? "
To get the obvious out of the way: in powerlifting competition it is, factually, not cheating. End of discussion right? And outside of competition there are no rules, and any and all criteria for what constitutes a “valid” lift are completely arbitrary.
Right?
Well you’re wrong, dummy.
When the rules of competition allow for sumo, about 46%* of those who are asked will still consider it “wrong” to lift this way.
The fact that he same people will call “cheating” IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORMAL RULES makes the whole situation puzzling to any rational observer.
Even exceptional feats of strength, like lifting 500+lbs of the floor are seemingly invalidated by the fact of being pulled with a sumo stance.
Where does this come from?
Using a research technique I like to call “kinda thinking about stuff while browsing Youtube” I have traced this particular glitch back to what’s basically a mix of tribalism, insecurity and envy.
We like things we know and do. We don’t like it when we see folks do stuff we can’t do. It makes us feel a little bit stupid and weak. So we try to look for reasons to bring those who are seemingly above us down to our level.
It’s such a basic and obvious response it barely warrants an explanation.
“This guy isn’t better at lifting than me, he is simply cheating. My accomplishments are equal to his and my ego remains intact. Hurrah”
You can see the same response in the comments on a video of somebody squatting impressive weight just a tad above paralell, or with slightly shaky knees. If you dare to post a lift that deviates from what your viewers perceive to be the standard, you would have been better off not posting at all.
Round back during a deadlift? Some people won't just express their personal preference to be different from yours: they will actively HATE you for doing it "wrong"
I remember a video of a powerlifter pulling a heavy rep with a wide stance, only to drop the plates on his foot. He had to have two toes amputated.
"Serves him right for cheating" was the concensus in the youtube comments.
Hard to imagine, I know. Especially if you remember this guy was just lifiing. He was making no statements about anything. Just minding his own business and had a bit of bad luck.
When it comes to lifting, emotions run high sometimes.
The only way to bring the "sumo is cheating" and the "it depends" camps together would be for everyone to treat sumo and conventional pulls as completely separate lifts, and to stop comparing them alltogether.
The road to peace among ALL lifters would be to treat each and every variation of all lifts as separate feats and measurements of strength. But that would require total and complete enlightenment of the lifting population, so that’s never going to happen.
Okay: enough about man's cruelty to man: we're here to answer a question. It’s just hard to remain objective when we throw around words like “cheating”. Let's change that.
If you would swap "cheating" for "easier" the question becomes a bit more answerable. Though how "easy" a lift his depends on more than the technique used. A technique that allows for more weight will most likely be used to lift -get this- MORE WEIGHT.
If we ask “is sumo a more efficient way to lift a barbell off the floor to lockout than conventional” we can examine and compare the two lifts without hurting any valuable ego’s.
The question suddenly almost answers itself:
The fact that the question is ONLY asked with sumo as the subject of scrutiny hints at the fact that yes, yes it is. Nobody has ever asked if conventional is cheating or more efficient compared to sumo after all.
“Is it more efficient to increase the ROM of the bar, and put yourself in a less upright position, therefore increasing the limiting factor of the spinal erectors in the deadlift?” Is a ridiculous question: OF COURSE it's not.
It follows that asking the opposite question is also ridiculous.
*I made this number up. It means nothing.