Please take a look at my new article. You may like it or hate it. Let me know what you think.
http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do;jsessionid=750D816220531C8487A70C7633E5E979.hydra?id=1823834
Since you were brave enough to ask -
The concept doesn’t work.
There’s far too many questions and factors in the concept for one article to address it - such as -
What will happen if you’re not ‘balanced’?
Do you need to be balanced?
IMO it should be a range rather than a single figure.
Are these for females or males?
Africans or Europeans?
What’s the effect of training age?
Athletes or Bodybuilders?
If they are athletes then what group - marathon runners or sprinters?
How broad was the base group of athletes you took data from?
Were they athletes or Joe Normals?
The concept of ‘structural balance’ might be an interesting talking point - but as for using rules like this simple figures are not applicable.
I think that’s all addressed in the first few paragraphs.
I think it is quite an interesting idea and I like that you thought of it in relation to where the person’s strengths are but all the things No23 says above.
Still worthwhile thinking about as a strength coach at least in broad terms.
Here are some results for a 52Kg female:
110Kg Deadlift
105Kg Squat
50Kg Bench Press
55Kg Hang Clean
The concept of being ‘balanced’ is sound.
We all recognise that you can’t win the 100m with Hamstrings like spagetti and Quads like a great oak.
However to use a single % as a figure is misleading - if you had used a range I think it would have been more believeable.
I respect you for putting your thoughts on paper and for asking for comments.
To me the last line is completely contradictory.
I’ve always had a problem with ratios because of the differences in those they are applied to. Male/female? Long legs/short legs? and so on.
I especially have had a problem with the ratios coming from a guy who claims he got the ‘secret ratio tables’ from the East Germans.
Balance is a tricky equation that shifts depending on the speed of movement. Better to look at each athlete and create a picture for yourself of what you need to see for results.
When did I ever say that? 
I posted in the article where i got the numbers, from the people i’ve worked with over the years.
I think you are dead on with the range. It was hard to express that in the way i arranged the article. I have a 18 by 24 wall chart coming out that is much more user friendly and can work in range format. You’ll probably find that easier to use and much more suitable.
The original flawed concept of structural balance claimed to come from secret East German figures
I believe however there are far too many variables to take into account for there ever to be one figure/table/range to be practical enough for day-to-day use.
I think he is referring to the usage/claim of these secret tables by a very well known s & c guru-CP.
Guess you missed that one! Remember the guru who always has the ‘tables’ for everything??
Balanced – Functional - Optimal
Three different things and not one in the same in my book, especially when you consider specialization.
Does anyone else think those #s for bicep curls are high? Perhaps I have weak arms.
Someone squatting 315lbs would dumbell curl 65lb in each hand; someone bench pressing 225 would dubell curl 60lb in each hand.
Seem pretty high to me. I bench and squat more than that and do a good amount of pulling work, but probably couldn’t curl 60lbs x 1 without some english on it.
Remember, specificity trumps out. You guys are athletes and have learned to put most of your efforts towards the bigger movement.
By the way, hope you figured I wasn’t talking about you earlier- you prob figured who by now
I did, thanks.
I think that it’s a cool article!
I mean that can provide some general indications about oneself force in one specifically exercise,compared with the others.
But there are some specifications to do,that you have underlined.