.png)
“How Good Is Your Bench Press? A Data-Driven Guide for Strength Athletes”
- JHEPCxTJH
- Nov 16
- 38 min read
“How Good Is Your Bench Press? A Data-Driven Guide for Strength Athletes”
Why Bench Press Strength Needs Proper Context
Strength athletes ask the same question over and over again: “Is my bench good?” On the surface it sounds simple, yet the reality is that very few lifters have a coherent framework for answering it. Most rely on whatever they have absorbed from social media, their training partners, their gym environment, or the fragments of advice scattered across strength forums. Others anchor their expectations to what they see at local meets or in highlight clips from the top of the sport. None of these are reliable reference points on their own, and when taken together they often produce confusion rather than clarity.
The bench press is unique among the big lifts because almost every lifter has an opinion on what counts as strong. It is one of the most frequently performed barbell exercises in the world, yet also one of the most misunderstood. A lifter who benches in a commercial gym will encounter inflated numbers, soft lockouts, assisted lifts, and partial ranges of motion. A lifter who competes in drug-tested federations will see a very different landscape, built on stricter judging, paused standards, and bodyweight-sensitive performances. A strongman who benches irregularly will sit somewhere else again, often influenced by overhead performance and long-term structural demands rather than pure bench development. Without context, the question “Is my bench good?” does not have a meaningful answer because it is missing the environment in which the lift is being judged.
We are talking raw bench today - done to competition standard.
This is the core issue with most existing strength standards online. They collapse every lifter into one undifferentiated mass. They do not distinguish between the 60 kg novice learning to press for the first time, the 140 kg heavyweight moving serious absolute numbers, the drug-tested competitor in pursuit of international qualification, or the untested bencher chasing all-time rankings. When every lifter is forced into the same mould, the resulting number tells you nothing about where you stand. It does not tell you whether you are progressing well for your weight class. It does not tell you whether your performance is typical, above average, or genuinely exceptional within your competitive environment. It does not tell you whether your training decisions are anchored to reality or driven by comparison to a lifter whose circumstances bear no resemblance to your own.
To address this, the current article builds its structure on the strongest set of data available anywhere online for raw bench performance. (A breakdown of the dataset is below - the full dataset breakdown that explains all the working will be on Conjugate Cult VIP)
Bringing these sources together creates a unified picture that is clearer and more precise than anything available in conventional strength standards charts. The goal is not to offer a single number labelled as “good.” It is to give each lifter a practical, weight-class-specific, competition-aware framework that reflects the reality of raw bench performance across the entire strength community. The purpose is to allow you to place yourself accurately within that landscape, understand what level you are operating at, and assess your progress with confidence.
The Dataset: Where These Numbers Come From and Why They Matter
Any meaningful discussion of bench press standards must begin with a precise explanation of the data that underpins those standards. Bench strength varies widely across training environments, and without clarity on where the numbers originate, the conclusions drawn from them lack weight. The tables in this article were built from a set of sources that capture the entire landscape of bench performance, from novice trainees logging their first lifts to athletes reaching historic levels in sanctioned competition. Each dataset offers something that the others cannot provide. Together they produce a comprehensive and reliable map of bench strength across the strength sports ecosystem.
The first and most substantial source is OpenPowerlifting. This database holds the full competitive history of raw bench press performances across every male and female weight class. It is not a curated list of highlights, nor a selective display of the strongest attempts. It includes every valid lift ever submitted in federations around the world. This means the tables draw from a complete competitive record, not a sample. The data reflects what lifters have achieved under regulated standards: paused benches, fixed commands, strict lockout criteria, bodyweight classes, and formal judging environments. Because it captures all weight classes and all levels of performance, it shows the true distribution of strength within the sport. The world-class numbers establish the upper boundaries of what lifters can achieve. The middle of the dataset reveals what competitive lifters typically bench at regional, national, and international meets. The lower end shows the earliest stages of competitive development. This full spectrum is essential for constructing accurate benchmarks.
Alongside this, the analysis incorporates StrengthLevel, which contains tens of millions of user-logged lifts from lifters across a broad range of experience. This dataset includes people who train consistently but do not compete, individuals who log structured programmes, and general trainees who the competitive databases will never capture. It offers insight into population-wide strength patterns, showing how the bench press behaves outside formal sport. The Intermediate, Advanced, and Elite tiers from StrengthLevel reflect large performance clusters within the logged population. These clusters show how real lifters distribute themselves across strength categories, how their lifts scale with bodyweight, and where performance starts to stand out from the general training environment. This creates the baseline from which serious strength athletes diverge.
The article also draws from StrengthLog, which provides a separate logged-training dataset from a software platform used by a wide range of lifters. StrengthLog reveals consistent patterns in the training lives of people who track their sessions. It captures trends in volume, frequency, and progression that complement the static numbers in the competition datasets. StrengthLog’s performance levels show where the average regular trainee sits, where the stronger segment of recreational lifters tend to cluster, and how far the competitive standards lie above them. It anchors the StrengthLevel data and offers an additional measure of how lifters develop outside the platform.
To understand broader public perception, the analysis incorporates information drawn from Healthline, ExRx, Men’s Health, and the Reddit strength communities. These sources reflect how the general public think about bench strength. They show the misconceptions that circulate online, the oversimplified standards often repeated in mainstream fitness writing, and the way many lifters arrive at distorted expectations about their own performance. These sources are not used to define the standards in the tables. They are included because they are part of the cultural backdrop against which lifters form their beliefs. Understanding how these perceptions develop helps explain why many lifters underestimate or overestimate their level in relation to the strength sport population.
The article also draws practical insight from coaching discussions hosted by outlets such as EliteFTS, which publishes logs and training analyses from competitive lifters and experienced coaches. These materials provide context for how bench strength varies by training style, equipment, and athletic background. They also document long-term development patterns that align with the competitive databases. Articles from Juggernaut Training Systems add further depth by exploring technique, special exercises, and long-term progression strategies in bench-specific training cycles. These coaching resources support the broader dataset by showing the lived reality of how bench strength is built across many training systems.
Finally, the most important interpretive layer comes from the coaching outcomes gathered across fifteen years of direct work with strongman athletes and powerlifters. This includes athletes who have trained under you from their first exposure to a barbell, seasoned competitors preparing for national and international platforms, and lifters who have reached world-class status within their categories. These coaching logs show the long-term behaviour of bench strength in actual practice: what progression looks like year after year, how different anthropometrics influence ceiling potential, how tested athletes scale relative to untested athletes, how strongman bench numbers compare to powerlifting numbers, and how individual variation interacts with programme structure. This lived experience provides the necessary qualitative dimension to support the quantitative data. It confirms where the statistical patterns hold, where they diverge, and where common beliefs do not match reality.
In addition to the competitive records drawn from OpenPowerlifting, the analysis incorporates qualifying totals and bench standards from the major UK federations. This includes the A/BPU, WRPF UK, IPL UK, GPC-GB/GPC Combined Nations, and British Powerlifting. Examining these federations provides a clear view of what is required to reach national platforms, what distinguishes a lifter who qualifies from one who places, and how records progress across equipped, classic, and tested divisions. These qualifying standards show how bench strength behaves within the UK competitive structure and confirm the tiered benchmarks presented in the tables. By comparing federation records, qualification requirements, and typical podium results, it becomes possible to anchor individual performance within a real competitive pathway rather than relying on isolated numbers or informal gym comparisons.
Taken together, these sources create the strongest foundation available for producing accurate, weight-class-specific, competition-aware bench standards. No single dataset would be sufficient on its own. Competition data alone would exclude the majority of lifters. Logged population data alone would obscure the upper limits of human performance. Coaching anecdotes alone would lack the scale needed for reliable trend analysis. When combined, the result is a complete picture of bench strength across the entire lifting landscape, from the first month of training to the highest achievements ever recorded. This is why the tables in this article carry authority. They rest on an integrated body of evidence rather than isolated benchmarks or narrow snapshots of the sport.
Disclaimer on Data, Bench-Only Lifters, and Outliers
The data in this article reflects the full competitive history of raw benching. That includes full power athletes and a significant number of bench-only specialists. Bench-only lifters often sit far above the typical full power trajectory because they direct more training volume, technical work, and long-term development toward a single lift. Their numbers raise the upper boundaries of the world class and generational tiers, especially in the heavier classes.
Outliers also pull the ceiling upward. Every strength sport has athletes whose anthropometrics, training history, and physical structure place them far beyond what most lifters will ever produce. Their lifts do not distort the tier system. They confirm the realities of performance at the extreme end of the sport.
Full power lifters sometimes view these numbers as inflated (especially in the current era of Raw untested lifting where the squat and deadlift are seen as king) because their training is distributed across three lifts rather than one. That distinction is important for interpretation, but the dataset is used as it exists: all valid benches performed under formal conditions.
How to Use This Article
This article is designed to be a working tool rather than something you read once and forget. The process for using it is straightforward.
First, identify your bodyweight and gender. Use the weight class that best reflects your current stable bodyweight in competition, or the class you intend to compete in if you are already within a sensible range of that limit. Do not chase a lighter class on paper if you have no realistic plan to reach it without losing strength.
Second, decide whether you should treat yourself as tested or untested. If you compete in federations with drug testing and you prepare in a drug-free environment, you should use the tested adjustment and reduce the untested standards by eight to eleven percent. If you lift in untested federations, or do not consider yourself bound by tested norms, you can use the raw tables as written.
Third, take your best valid competition bench and match it to the appropriate tier for your weight class. If you do not yet have a competition bench, use the heaviest paused bench you can perform under full competition standards, with a clear pause and locked-out finish, and treat this as a provisional number. Find the band where that lift fits and read the description of that tier carefully. This tells you where you currently sit in the landscape of strength sport.
Finally, use your tier to set realistic six-month and twelve-month targets. If you are near the lower edge of a tier, aim to reach the upper edge. If you are already near the top of a tier, your next long-term target will be the entry point of the tier above. Align your programming, recovery, and competition schedule with that goal. Revisit the tables after each training block or meet to confirm whether your bench has moved in the direction you planned.
Used in this way, the article becomes a reference you can return to repeatedly. It allows you to track your progress, adjust your expectations, and keep your bench development tied to real data rather than guesswork.
The Strength Categories Explained
Before any lifter can make sense of the tables that follow, the categories themselves need to be understood with complete clarity. Strength means different things at different points on the performance spectrum. A bench press that signals genuine progress for one athlete can be entirely unremarkable for another. Without a shared language for levels of performance, the numbers lose their meaning. The categories outlined here give structure to the data, prevent misinterpretation, and ensure that every lifter reads the tables with an accurate sense of what each standard represents within strength sports.
The first category is national baseline. This represents the point at which a trained athlete begins to show genuine competitive capacity at a national level within their home federation. It is not the minimum strength required to enter a meet. It reflects the minimum standard that places a lifter into a field where they can expect to hold their own (you might think well I bench 20kg less than this and have won national tested meets - Okay but I bet your squat AND DEFINITELY DEADLIFT do most of the heavy lifting). An athlete who has reached this level demonstrates technical competence, consistent training history, and a bench press that contributes meaningfully to their total rather than holding it back. National baseline is also the point at which progress becomes more deliberate. Strength gains no longer arise from simple exposure to training but from structured planning, targeted weaknesses, and long-term development. In the competitive landscape, this level is where a lifter is no longer developing the basics and is beginning to transition into genuine sport performance.
The next category is national strong or fringe international. This standard is held by lifters who frequently appear on podiums at regional or national competitions and often place within striking distance of international qualification. They are no longer operating at baseline. Their lifts sit solidly within the upper ranges of domestic performance. They have the capacity to produce numbers that attract attention within their weight class. Athletes at this level often have several years of dedicated training behind them and a clear understanding of how to manage their bench development across a full training year. They may not be at the threshold required to perform strongly on an international stage, but they are close enough for international selection to become a realistic goal. In many federations, these lifters form the core of each competitive season because they maintain a high standard of performance while continuing to develop toward the next tier.
Above this sits the category labelled international standard. This is not a loose or motivational phrase. It has a concrete meaning derived from the dataset. International standard lifters hold benches that replicate the numbers needed to compete and place in international events across tested and untested federations. These are performances that reliably score well outside domestic competition and hold their value under stricter judging, stiffer competition, and more demanding travel and preparation schedules. Athletes at this level often demonstrate refined technique, a long pattern of consistent competition results, and the ability to execute high-pressure lifts at major meets. Their benches reflect the calibre seen on European, Commonwealth, and world-level platforms. They sit comfortably above national strong standards and show a degree of physical and technical development that separates them from the bulk of competitive lifters.
The next category is world class. This level is defined directly from the upper ranges of the OpenPowerlifting dataset, which provides a complete record of raw bench performance across the entire history of the sport. A world-class bench is not merely strong for a given weight class. It is strong within the context of every lifter who has ever stepped onto a platform in formal conditions. These lifters sit within the top segment of the dataset for their weight class. Their lifts demonstrate a level of strength that is uncommon even among international competitors. World-class athletes almost always have several years of high-level training behind them, a competition history that shows consistent upward trends, and technical execution that holds up under strict refereeing. They are identifiable not only by their absolute numbers but by the reliability with which they reproduce high-level lifts in competition settings. Their benches reflect what the human body can achieve when training, technique, and genetics align in sport-specific conditions.
Finally, the highest category is generational. This represents lifts drawn from the extreme limit of the global dataset. These performances sit at or near the top of the all-time lists for each weight class. They reshape expectations of what is possible within raw benching. Generational lifts are not simply world class. They exceed the boundaries set by decades of competition and often stand apart from their contemporaries by significant margins. Athletes who achieve these numbers possess capabilities that cannot be explained through training alone. They often redefine standards for their class and influence how future lifters structure their preparation. These lifts do not occur frequently. They appear occasionally in the records and become reference points for the sport. They set the ceiling for what is possible, and they form the anchor from which all other standards are scaled.
Understanding these categories is essential for interpreting the tables that follow. Without these definitions, the numbers would appear as isolated ranges without context or significance. With them, each reader can locate their own performance within a structured competitive landscape, see what is required to progress to the next tier, and evaluate their bench press in a way that aligns with the reality of strength sport rather than the misconceptions that circulate online or within casual training environments.
TL:DR -
National baseline The level at which a trained athlete becomes genuinely competitive at national events. Represents solid technical execution and a bench that contributes meaningfully to the total.
National strong / fringe international Athletes who regularly place highly at domestic competitions and sit close to international qualification standards. Demonstrates strong performance within the upper ranges of national strength.
International standard Lifters capable of competing and placing at international events. Their benches hold up against stricter judging, deeper fields, and the demands of higher-level preparation.
World class Elite global performers whose lifts sit within the highest segment of the OpenPowerlifting dataset for their weight class. Represents rare strength, refined execution, and consistent high-level performance.
Generational Historically rare lifts at the extreme upper limit of the global dataset. These benches approach or exceed all-time records and set new expectations for what is possible in the sport.
Here's some very general maths for you:
TIER 1 - National Baseline
= the minimum bench required to be competitive at national-level meets. This aligns with ~55% of world-class ceiling.
TIER 2 - National Strong / Fringe International
= borderline international-calibre; top 10% of national lifters. ≈ 60–70% of world-class ceiling.
TIER 3 - International Standard
= lifters who can attend / final / podium at international meets. ≈ 70–85% of world-class ceiling.
TIER 4 - World Class
= elite-of-elite raw benchers in that class. ≈ 85–100% of class ceiling.
TIER 5 - Generational
= within 5% of the all-time WR or sets a new one. ≈ 95–105%+ of ceiling.
MEN’S BENCH PRESS TIERS (By Weight Class)
140+ kg / SHW Class
Ceiling: 355 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 185–205 kg |
National Strong / Fringe International | 210–240 kg |
International Standard | 240–280 kg |
World Class | 280–310 kg |
Generational | 310–355+ kg |
140 kg class - Ceiling: 320 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 175–190 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 200–225 kg |
International | 225–270 kg |
World Class | 270–300 kg |
Generational | 300–320+ kg |
125 kg class - Ceiling: 306 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 165–180 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 185–210 kg |
International | 210–260 kg |
World Class | 260–290 kg |
Generational | 290–306+ kg |
110 kg class - Ceiling: 305 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 160–175 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 175–200 kg |
International | 200–260 kg |
World Class | 260–300 kg |
Generational | 300–305+ kg |
100 kg class - Ceiling: 290 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 150–165 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 165–190 kg |
International | 190–240 kg |
World Class | 240–285 kg |
Generational | 285–290+ kg |
90 kg class - Ceiling: 280 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 140–155 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 155–180 kg |
International | 180–235 kg |
World Class | 235–275 kg |
Generational | 275–280+ kg |
82.5 kg class - Ceiling: 250 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 125–140 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 140–160 kg |
International | 160–210 kg |
World Class | 210–245 kg |
Generational | 245–250+ kg |
75 kg class - Ceiling: 245 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 120–135 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 135–155 kg |
International | 155–205 kg |
World Class | 205–240 kg |
Generational | 240–245+ kg |
67.5 kg class - Ceiling: 228 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 110–125 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 125–150 kg |
International | 150–190 kg |
World Class | 190–225 kg |
Generational | 225–228+ kg |
60 kg class - Ceiling: 211 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 100–110 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 110–135 kg |
International | 135–175 kg |
World Class | 175–200 kg |
Generational | 200–211+ kg |
WOMEN’S BENCH PRESS TIERS (By Weight Class)
The Women’s Untested Numbers at the Higher End are skewed even further than the mens - think 10-17% rather than 8-11%
90+ kg class - Ceiling: ~207.5 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 95–110 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 110–130 kg |
International | 130–175 kg |
World Class | 175–200 kg |
Generational | 200–207.5+ kg |
90 kg class - Ceiling: ~182.5 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 85–95 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 95–115 kg |
International | 115–155 kg |
World Class | 155–175 kg |
Generational | 175–182.5+ kg |
82.5 kg class - Ceiling: ~172.5 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 75–90 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 90–110 kg |
International | 110–145 kg |
World Class | 145–165 kg |
Generational | 165–172.5+ kg |
75 kg class - Ceiling: ~163 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 70–85 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 85–100 kg |
International | 100–140 kg |
World Class | 140–155 kg |
Generational | 155–163+ kg |
67.5 kg class - Ceiling: ~155 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 65–80 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 80–95 kg |
International | 95–130 kg |
World Class | 130–150 kg |
Generational | 150–155+ kg |
60 kg class - Ceiling: ~145 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 60–75 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 75–90 kg |
International | 90–120 kg |
World Class | 120–140 kg |
Generational | 140–145+ kg |
56 kg class - Ceiling: ~143 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 57–72 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 72–88 kg |
International | 88–120 kg |
World Class | 120–137.5 kg |
Generational | 138–143+ kg |
52 kg class - Ceiling: ~133 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 53–67 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 67–80 kg |
International | 80–110 kg |
World Class | 110–127.5 kg |
Generational | 128–133+ kg |
48 kg class - Ceiling: ~141 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 55–70 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 70–85 kg |
International | 85–125 kg |
World Class | 125–135 kg |
Generational | 135–141+ kg |
44 kg class - Ceiling: ~127.5 kg
Tier | Standard |
National Baseline | 50–62 kg |
Nat. Strong / Fringe Int. | 62–75 kg |
International | 75–110 kg |
World Class | 110–120 kg |
Generational | 120–127.5+ kg |
What These Numbers Mean for Tested Lifters
When you line up every dataset we pulled together, a pattern emerges with absolute clarity. Whether you look at StrengthLevel’s skill tiers, StrengthLog’s aggregated standards, or OpenPowerlifting’s top 20 benches in each weight class, the relationship between tested and untested performance is remarkably stable.
The gap sits at roughly eight to eleven percent.
This is not speculation. It is consistent across:
every male and female weight class
middle-of-the-pack national totals
fringe international lifters
the very top end of the all-time rankings
The strongest possible confirmation comes from comparing the OpenPowerlifting ceilings directly. The best benches ever performed in the IPF and other tested environments fall almost exactly eight to eleven percent below the top benches from untested federations at the same bodyweights. This relationship holds true whether the absolute numbers are small in the lighter classes or enormous in the heavyweight divisions. (Bench Presses performed by Para athletes dominate the light weight classes and these are tested).
This matters because it gives tested lifters a way to interpret the tables with accuracy. The standards you see for untested lifters can be converted into tested equivalents simply by reducing them by eight to eleven percent. You do not need separate tables or complicated formulae. You only need this conversion. What I will say as mentioned above however is that women's untested numbers do tend to skew even higher than the 8-11% average especially at the higher weight classes.
Examples:
A 250 kg untested world-class bench in the 82.5 kg class translates to roughly 222–230 kg for a tested world-class lifter.
A 163 kg untested female world-class bench in the 75 kg class becomes roughly 145–150 kg in a tested environment.
A 300 kg untested 110 kg class bench maps onto roughly 267–275 kg tested. (The actual comparison is 305kg Untested and 277.5kg Tested so you see how the rough comparison is pretty accurate)
So these aren’t purely theoretical projections. These are fairly exact numbers you see when you compare the strongest tested lifters in history to their untested counterparts.
This percentage shift allows a lifter to use the entire dataset in a meaningful way. If you are a tested athlete and want to know where your bench press stands, the process is straightforward:
Find your weight class in the untested tables.
Identify the category of performance you want to assess: national baseline, national strong, fringe international, international standard, world class, or generational.
Apply the eight to eleven percent adjustment.
Match the resulting number to your current best competition bench.
If your bench sits inside the adjusted range, you are performing at that level for your competitive environment.
This is the most reliable method because there is far more untested data available across all weight classes, and the performance trend between tested and untested lifting is predictable and stable. Strongman athletes, drug-tested powerlifters, and anyone training in natural divisions can use this formula to benchmark their progress without being misled by raw unadjusted numbers.
For programming decisions, long-term planning, and honest self-assessment, this adjusted interpretation is more informative than relying on generic online strength standards. It is grounded in real competition results and the actual distribution of benches across the training population.
If you are a tested athlete and want to understand your level, this is the clearest way to do it.
Understanding the Tested vs Untested Gap
Once the full set of male and female tier tables is laid out, the next step is understanding how these numbers apply to tested lifters. The tables themselves reflect untested ceilings because the OpenPowerlifting dataset is dominated by untested federations at the highest end of performance. Untested data is also far more abundant, which allows the upper boundaries of each weight class to be established with precision. This raises an obvious question for lifters who compete in drug-tested environments: how closely do these untested standards reflect what is achievable in federations with strict testing protocols, and how much adjustment is required to interpret the numbers correctly?
To answer that, the entire OpenPowerlifting dataset was examined across tested and untested federations, with attention paid to how bench performance scales in each weight class. This includes historic results, current records, median performances, and the lifts produced by athletes who sit in the highest positions within their divisions. These numbers were cross-referenced with StrengthLevel’s own tested-versus-all-lifters breakdown, which is based on tens of millions of logged lifts pooled across training populations. When these two sources are compared side by side, a pattern appears that does not vary in any significant way. The difference between tested and untested performance sits consistently between eight and eleven percent.
This consistency holds in the lighter women’s classes where absolute loads are modest. It holds in the middle men’s classes where the dataset is most densely populated. It holds in the heavyweight divisions where the strongest lifts in history sit on the untested side. It holds both in mid-level national standards and at the extreme upper limit where only a handful of lifters in the world have ever reached the numbers required to be classed as generational. Regardless of how the data is sliced, the same relationship repeats.
The clearest confirmation of the eight to eleven percent gap comes from comparing the all-time raw ceilings directly. For example, the strongest benches ever achieved in the IPF and other tested federations fall almost exactly eight to eleven percent below the strongest benches achieved in untested federations at the same bodyweight. This pattern continues across the 60 kg, 75 kg, 82.5 kg, 100 kg, 110 kg, 125 kg, and 140 kg men’s classes, and across the full range of women’s classes from 44 kg to 90+. These comparisons rely on complete competitive histories rather than isolated performances, which removes the influence of short-lived anomalies and ensures that the conclusions are grounded in the full record of the sport.
This predictability allows a tested lifter to interpret the untested tables in a straightforward and reliable way. No complex conversion is needed. No guesswork is required. The benchmarks for each tier can be adjusted by applying an eight to eleven percent reduction to account for the difference produced by drug-free performance. Once that adjustment is made, the numbers reflect the standards that lie inside tested competition.
Several examples illustrate this clearly. In the men’s 82.5 kg class, a 250 kg raw bench represents the extreme limit of untested performance. When reduced by eight to eleven percent, this becomes roughly 222 to 230 kg, which is exactly where the strongest tested lifters in history sit. In the women’s 75 kg class, a 163 kg untested world-class bench becomes roughly 145 to 150 kg once the adjustment is applied. Again, this aligns directly with the highest-level tested performances recorded in that division. In the men’s 110 kg class, a 300 kg raw bench is at the peak of the untested dataset. Reducing this number to the tested equivalent yields a range of roughly 267 to 275 kg, which mirrors the top end of the tested results for that class.
These examples are not theoretical projections or abstract conversions. They are drawn directly from the actual numbers achieved by the best tested and untested lifters across the full competitive timeline. They confirm that the eight to eleven percent adjustment represents the reality of drug-free benching across federations, bodyweights, and genders.
For a tested athlete trying to understand where their bench sits relative to the standards presented in the tables, the process is clear. First, identify the untested tier that corresponds with your bodyweight. Second, decide whether you want to assess yourself against national baseline, national strong, fringe international, international standard, world class, or generational performance. Third, apply the eight to eleven percent reduction. Fourth, compare the resulting range to your best valid competition bench. If your number sits within that range, it accurately reflects your standing within the tested environment.
This method is more dependable than relying on generic strength standards because it captures the real structure of competitive bench performance. It reflects the difference produced by drug-free lifting without relying on informal opinion. It uses the largest untested dataset available, supported by logged-training data and StrengthLevel’s population-wide distributions, and it sits comfortably alongside the patterns observed over fifteen years of coaching tested and untested athletes. It gives tested lifters a realistic framework for evaluating their progress and planning future development without inflating expectations or understating what is required to reach higher tiers of performance.
When used alongside the weight-class tables, this adjustment provides the most accurate method currently available for understanding how a tested bench compares to competitive outcomes across strength sports.
What Strongman Athletes Should Take From These Tables
Strongman athletes sit in a distinctive position when interpreting bench press standards. Bench strength contributes to overall capability, but it does not determine competitive success in the same direct way it does in powerlifting. The bench press remains a useful training tool for building upper body structure, pressing strength, triceps development, and shoulder stability. It supports overhead work, stone loading, carry variations, and general event resilience. However, it is not a scored event in most strongman competitions, and even when it appears, it rarely follows the strict paused format used in powerlifting. For this reason, strongman athletes need to understand how to use the tables in a way that reflects the demands of their sport rather than simply adopting powerlifting expectations.
Strongman athletes will notice immediately that the weight classes used in these tables do not match the usual strongman divisions. Powerlifting relies on fixed categories such as 67.5, 75, 82.5, 90, 100, 110, 125, and 140 kg for men, and 44 through 90+ kg for women. (and of course that only speaks to the Traditional weight classes and not the revised IPF ones). Strongman divisions are structured differently, with categories such as under 70, under 80, under 90, under 105, and under 120 kg for men, and under 64, under 73, and under 82 kg for women. Because of this, strongman athletes should read the powerlifting classes as reference points rather than direct equivalents. The closest neighbouring class can be used to interpret the table, and the strength levels can be scaled appropriately to match the realities of strongman competition.
Most strongman programmes include less direct benching across the training year than powerlifting programmes. Pressing volume is often shared across log, axle, dumbbell, incline variants, dips, and accessory work for the upper back. High-level strongmen usually develop exceptional shoulder and triceps strength through overhead-focused training rather than heavy paused benches. Many athletes maintain a bench number that is lower than a powerlifter in the same weight class without compromising their competitive outcomes. This does not reflect a deficiency. It reflects the priorities required for their sport.
When reading the tables, a strongman should treat the powerlifting standards as an anchor rather than a target. The national baseline for powerlifting is the point at which the bench becomes a supportive part of the total. For strongman, the equivalent baseline is the level at which the bench indicates adequate structural strength for event performance. This number is almost always lower than the powerlifting baseline. For example, a 105 kg strongman pressing between 140 and 160 kg on a paused bench possesses sufficient strength to progress in log, axle, and sandbag load events with the correct programming. A 110 kg powerlifter with the same bench may struggle at national level, but a strongman with that bench can perform well in overhead events because the pressing pattern is different and the strength transfer arises from different technical demands.
The same applies across the lighter and heavier classes. A 75 kg strongwoman with a bench in the 70 to 85 kg range can excel in log and dumbbell events, even though that same range represents the lower end of the national baseline for powerlifting. Strongman athletes are judged by their ability to produce force overhead, to stabilise loads during carries, and to apply strength under awkward leverage. The bench press contributes to these qualities, but it does not dictate them.
The tables provide a way to understand where a strongman bench sits within the strength landscape. They should not be used as a prescription for what a strongman must achieve. A strongman does not need to match the national or international standards of powerlifting to be successful in their own sport. The values in the tables help identify structural weaknesses, confirm whether pressing strength is underdeveloped relative to bodyweight, and guide decisions about how much bench work to include in a training cycle. They also help prevent misinterpretation when comparing oneself to powerlifters who specialise in the lift.
The purpose of using these tables as a strongman is to set realistic expectations, to identify the level of bench strength that supports overhead performance, and to avoid unnecessary pressure to chase numbers that do not directly improve competitive outcomes. When bench strength is interpreted in this way, strongman athletes can anchor their training decisions to accurate information without compromising the priorities that define their sport.
Why Weight Class Context Matters More Than Raw Numbers
Bench press performance can only be understood when the lifter’s bodyweight is taken into account. Without that context, the numbers lose accuracy and lifters end up comparing themselves to standards that have little relevance to their own division. The absolute load on the bar does not tell the full story. Two lifters may bench the same number, yet the significance of that number can be entirely different when bodyweight is considered.
A clear example is a 140 kg male who benches 170 kg. In absolute terms this is a respectable lift in a general gym environment, but within the powerlifting structure this sits below the national baseline for his class. The competitive demands of the super heavyweight divisions mean that absolute loads rise sharply as bodyweight increases. The wider frames, greater muscle mass, and different leverages available at these bodyweights alter the expectations entirely. A 170 kg bench in this class does not hold the same meaning as a 170 kg bench in a lighter category, because the relationship between bodyweight and strength output changes as the lifter moves up through the classes.
Contrast this with a 60 kg woman who benches 75 kg. In absolute terms the number is modest, but within her weight class this is a fringe international standard. The performance sits near the upper end of the OpenPowerlifting dataset for this division. It is strong enough to place her into competitive finals in many tested and untested federations. This is because the load represents a high percentage of her total bodyweight, and because the distribution of strength in this class places a premium on relative strength rather than absolute load.
These two examples demonstrate how bodyweight alters the meaning of a bench press. They show why comparing absolute numbers across classes can cause confusion. A heavy lifter will always have a higher ceiling for absolute strength, while a lighter lifter will always be operating closer to their structural limits even when the number on the bar appears small. The tables that precede this section are necessary because they show how strength actually scales in real competitive environments rather than relying on assumptions that do not reflect the behaviour of the sport.
A common error occurs when lifters view the bench press as an isolated test of strength without recognising how bodyweight shapes the expectations. This has led to widespread misunderstandings, particularly when lifters compare themselves to individuals in vastly different classes. It can also distort long-term goal setting. A lifter may believe they are underperforming because they cannot match the absolute numbers of someone far heavier, or they may believe they are progressing exceptionally well because they are comparing their lifts to individuals several classes below them in bodyweight.
Within my own coaching practice, bodyweight context has always been important, but I have also held a long-standing emphasis on total strength as the highest measure of performance. The total is the outcome that defines competitive powerlifting and serves as the clearest expression of a lifter’s overall capability. Coefficient-based systems exist to adjust for bodyweight, but they introduce their own limitations and often encourage lifters to overthink metrics that do not enhance their development. My preference has always been to keep the focus on total performance while still acknowledging that weight class anchors the interpretation of individual lifts, particularly the bench press.
When lifters understand how their bodyweight influences the meaning of their bench, they gain a more accurate sense of their standing and can evaluate their progress without distorting their expectations. Weight class context does not diminish ambition. It simply provides the structure needed to assess performance with accuracy and honesty.
The Common Errors Lifters Make When Evaluating Their Bench
Lifters often struggle to understand where their bench press stands because they rely on comparisons that do not reflect the realities of strength sport. The bench is one of the most frequently discussed lifts in gyms, yet it is also one of the most frequently misunderstood. Many of the beliefs that circulate in training communities come from environments where technique is loose, judging standards are absent, and context is missing. These misunderstandings affect the way lifters judge their own progress, set goals, and place themselves within a competitive landscape. A clear understanding of the most common errors prevents these problems and helps lifters evaluate their bench with accuracy.
One significant error is comparing gym lifts to competition lifts. A large number of benches performed in training do not meet the standards required on the platform. Gym benches often involve supportive hand contact from spotters, inconsistent pauses, selective range of motion, favourable grip widths that would be flagged in competition, or rebound techniques that would fail under any judge who understands the rulebook. These lifts can still be useful for building strength, but they cannot be used as a fair measure of competitive ability. The difference between a gym bench and a valid platform bench can be considerable. When lifters compare their training lifts to the competition-standard lifts of others, they create a false picture of their standing. The tables in this article rely entirely on competition data, not unregulated gym lifts, and the comparison must be made on those terms.
A second error occurs when drug-tested lifters evaluate themselves against untested world record holders. The strongest benches in history come from untested federations, and those lifts sit above the tested equivalents by a margin that remains consistent across weight classes and genders. The analysis in this article shows that the gap sits between eight and eleven percent. When tested lifters compare themselves directly to untested numbers without adjusting for this difference, they underestimate their progress and misjudge the standards required within their own competitive environment. The reason for presenting both datasets is to allow lifters to make informed comparisons rather than relying on assumptions.
Ignoring bodyweight is another common mistake. Bench strength varies dramatically across weight classes, and absolute numbers do not carry the same meaning for every lifter. A bench that is exceptional for a 60 kg lifter may be ordinary for a 125 kg lifter. Without acknowledging bodyweight, lifters compare themselves to standards that do not apply to them. This can lead to an inflated sense of achievement or the belief that they are far behind when they are in fact progressing well for their class. The tables presented earlier demonstrate clearly how strength scales across categories, and why weight class must always be considered when evaluating bench strength.
Another issue arises from generic statements about what counts as a strong bench. Ideas such as “two plates is strong” or “three plates is elite” circulate widely, yet they have no grounding in competition data and no relevance to most weight classes. These statements create expectations that do not match the realities of bench performance across the dataset. They also obscure the fact that strength levels differ across genders and divisions. The purpose of the tables is to replace these informal beliefs with numbers that come from actual competition results.
Social media has created additional confusion by amplifying selective content. Lifters often see highlight lifts that represent the extremes of performance rather than the norm. They see athletes who specialise in bench-only training or operate within unregulated environments. This shapes perceptions in a way that does not reflect typical strength levels. Without recognising this distortion, lifters may judge their own performance by comparing themselves to footage that represents a narrow, exceptional portion of the strength spectrum. Understanding the difference between public presentation and actual distribution of performance prevents this misinterpretation.
Another source of error is neglecting technique standards. Grip width, range of motion, bar path, pause length, and lockout standards all influence the outcome of a bench press. Many lifters use variations that support specific training goals, such as touch-and-go benches, short pauses, soft lockouts, Larson benches, or high-volume repeat efforts. These are legitimate training tools and can support long-term strength development. They are not, however, appropriate for comparison with competition-standard benches. When technique is inconsistent or permissive, the meaning of the number changes. A lifter who benches 150 kg with a soft lockout and no pause may be performing at a national baseline level in training but would require refinement to produce the same number under formal judging. Without recognising this difference, comparisons lose accuracy.
By addressing these common errors directly, lifters gain the clarity they need to evaluate their bench in a way that aligns with real sport performance. When comparisons are grounded in valid data, weight-class context, and proper technique standards, they become useful tools for long-term development rather than sources of confusion.
How to Set Bench Press Targets Based on Real Data
Once a lifter understands where their current bench sits within the tier system, the next step is deciding how to set goals that are anchored to reality rather than guesswork. Bench progress is one of the most variable aspects of strength training because it depends on technical refinement, individual leverages, the lifter’s training age, and the amount of time they can devote to pressing within their wider programme. A structured goal-setting process avoids unrealistic expectations and provides the clarity needed to develop the bench across six-month and twelve-month periods.
The first consideration is your current tier. A lifter at national baseline will progress differently from a lifter who already sits at fringe international or international standard. For those at baseline, six-month targets should usually focus on moving from the lower half of their tier to the upper half. This may represent an increase of five to ten percent depending on their class and training age. A twelve-month goal is often a shift into the next tier, provided their technique, work capacity, and weekly structure support that level of improvement. These progressions assume consistent training, stable bodyweight, and attention to the technical details that underpin a valid bench press.
For lifters in the national strong or fringe international range, progress behaves differently. Improvements are slower, more dependent on technical refinement, and more sensitive to recovery quality. Six-month targets at this level may involve adding two to five percent to the bench while solidifying technique under near-competition conditions. Twelve-month targets often revolve around improved consistency rather than dramatic jumps in absolute load. These lifters benefit from focusing on weaknesses in specific phases of the press, such as off-the-chest strength, mid-range control, or lockout stability.
Lifters at international standard and above see even slower progress. Their goals need to reflect the reality that every kilogram added to the bar requires disproportionate training resources. Six-month targets may revolve around improved quality of heavy singles, enhanced confidence at near-maximal weights, or increased reliability under pressure. Twelve-month targets may involve small but meaningful jumps in their peak single, or better performance in competition circumstances. This is where data-driven goal setting becomes essential. A lifter already benching at the top of the dataset cannot rely on the same progress patterns seen in beginners or intermediates.
Conjugate programming is particularly effective for moving between tiers because it allows the bench to develop through targeted variation rather than repetitive max attempts. A well-structured Conjugate approach rotates max effort pressing variations in a way that builds strain tolerance, improves stability, and prevents stagnation. Dynamic work develops bar speed and teaches the lifter to apply force quickly. Repetition work builds muscle through targeted volume. Weak point accessories correct the issues that prevent progress. Over time, this layered approach produces the attributes required to move from the lower tier to the next level, provided the lifter adheres to the structure and tracks their progress accurately.
Recognising the signs of plateau is also important. A plateau is not defined by a single missed lift. It becomes evident when several weeks pass without improvements in either maximal strength, submaximal consistency, bar speed, or technical precision. Fatigue also plays a part. If bar path becomes unstable, if shoulders feel unresponsive, or if lockout speed slows despite adequate warm-ups, it indicates that training stress has accumulated beyond what the lifter can recover from. Technique limitations often reveal themselves when heavy singles become inconsistent even though strength is present. In these cases, pushing harder does not produce results. A temporary shift toward technical training, improved recovery, or an adjusted weekly structure becomes more valuable than continued attempts at heavier loads.
There are times when a lifter should focus on maintaining their bench rather than pushing it. This is particularly true for strongman athletes preparing for competitions dominated by overhead work, and for powerlifters in phases where deadlift or squat require the majority of training attention. Maintenance does not mean neglect. It means selecting a level of work that preserves strength without compromising recovery. Once priorities shift back toward pressing development, the structure can be adjusted again.
For lifters who want a complete pathway for six months of focused bench progress, the resource that brings all these principles together is The Unholy Bible of Bench Press. It provides a full progression sequence, weekly structure, movement rotation, and detailed guidance for building pressing power with long-term sustainability.
This structured approach helps lifters move between tiers while respecting the realities of bench development and ensuring that progress is grounded in accurate data, consistent training, and repeatable performance patterns.
Outliers and Long-Term Potential
The final piece of context that lifters need when interpreting their bench press is an understanding of how outliers shape the extremes of performance. Bench strength does not develop uniformly across all athletes. The differences between lifters often begin with structural characteristics that have a significant influence on how far a bench press can progress over the long term. These structural factors are not superficial details. They include arm length, chest depth, ribcage angle, wrist thickness, clavicle width, and the way a lifter’s shoulders articulate under load. These characteristics vary widely, and they create differences in bar path, range of motion, leverage efficiency, joint loading, and how much muscle mass can be recruited in the pressing movement.
A lifter with shorter arms, a thicker chest, and a compact ribcage may find that the bench press responds quickly once they adopt stable technique. The range of motion is shorter, the bar path is easier to stabilise, and the torso provides a favourable base for pressing heavy loads. Another lifter with longer arms and a thinner chest may require more time to reach the same numbers even with perfect technique, because the bar travels further, mid-range control demands more development, and the structure of the lift places greater emphasis on triceps and shoulder strength. Neither lifter is better suited for all lifts. They are simply built differently, and these differences shape the ceiling of each movement.
This variation extends across the full spectrum of powerlifting and strongman. Some athletes excel in the bench press from early in their training because their structure supports it, while their squat or deadlift develops more slowly. Others find that their deadlift climbs rapidly while their bench progress is modest. Strongman athletes often discover that their overhead strength and back strength surpass their bench development because their event work biases these qualities. These patterns are not the result of poor training. They reflect the way each athlete’s structure interacts with specific movement demands.
These differences become more pronounced at higher levels. The athletes who hold the all-time raw bench records sit at the intersection of favourable anthropometrics, long-term training history, and high levels of physical development. Their lifts are not typical, and their progress cannot be used as a template for lifters whose structure does not align with theirs. This does not diminish the achievements of lifters in other tiers. It simply recognises that the upper limit of performance varies across individuals.
The presence of outliers does not weaken the tier system. It strengthens it by clarifying where exceptional lifts sit relative to the broader dataset. The tier system is built on the full distribution of bench performances across weight classes, and it reflects what trained athletes achieve through structured practice. Outliers sit above these tiers because their performances exceed the limits reached by the majority of lifters. They occupy the generational category because their numbers reshape expectations. When viewed in this way, outliers help define the top of the scale without altering the structure of the tiers beneath them.
For most lifters, long-term potential lies within the range defined by the tiers. Progress depends on technique, training consistency, recovery quality, and the ability to plan training across months and years. Recognising outliers for what they are eliminates unrealistic comparisons and allows each lifter to focus on their own progression rather than chasing numbers that are not grounded in their structural reality.
Benchmark Yourself Properly and Train With Accuracy
The purpose of this article is to give lifters a clear and reliable way to understand their bench press without relying on assumptions, informal beliefs, or selective information. The tables presented here draw from the full competitive record of raw benching, population-level logging data from StrengthLevel and StrengthLog, verified standards from major federations, and fifteen years of coaching experience across powerlifting and strongman. No other publicly available resource integrates these sources into a single, coherent framework. This makes the standards in this article the most accurate picture of bench performance available online.
Lifters now have a way to evaluate their bench with evidence rather than instinct. The weight-class tables show how strength scales in real competition. The tested-versus-untested adjustment shows how to interpret the numbers correctly depending on your federation. The tier definitions show what separates national baseline from fringe international, and international standard from world class. Strongman athletes can see how their bench fits within their own sport without adopting expectations that do not match their priorities. Powerlifters can identify their standing and structure their next training cycle with confidence.
When lifters benchmark themselves using accurate data, their training decisions become more precise. They set goals that reflect their weight class, their training age, and the demands of their sport. They avoid comparing themselves to lifts that do not reflect their environment. They recognise when they are progressing well and when they need to adjust. They prepare for competition with a clear understanding of what strong performance looks like in their class and where their bench sits within that landscape.
Accuracy removes confusion. It gives each lifter a stable reference point and a realistic pathway forward. This structure allows progress to be tracked with honesty and training to be planned with clarity.
Best of the Rest
Definitions and Assumptions
For clarity, the standards in this article refer strictly to raw bench press performance under competition conditions. Raw here means no bench shirt of any kind. Wrist wraps and a belt are permitted because they are widely allowed across classic divisions. Every number in the tables assumes a full pause on the chest, a stable bar path, a locked-out finish, and adherence to standard judging commands. Touch-and-go benches, soft lockouts, partials, and gym variations do not fall inside the scope of these values. The data reflects the landscape as it stands at the time of writing, based on the most recent entries in OpenPowerlifting and logged datasets from platforms such as StrengthLevel and StrengthLog. This framework isolates the bench press as its own lift rather than integrating it with totals. It allows lifters to analyse their bench with precision before placing it inside their wider competitive structure.
Worked Examples: Where Do You Sit?
The most practical way to understand the tables is to see how they apply to real profiles. These examples show how to interpret the tiers, how to apply the tested adjustment when required, and how to translate the result into actionable direction for training.
A 110 kg male with a 190 kg bench in a drug-tested federation and three years of experience sits at the lower end of national strong after the adjustment. His next six to twelve months should focus on refined technique under pause conditions, increased stability in the mid-range, and a structured approach to climbing toward the international band. He is progressing well for his training age, and his numbers show clear potential for national podiums with focused work.
A 75 kg female benching 95 kg in an untested environment and preparing for her first nationals sits inside the national strong to fringe international band. Her bench is well-developed relative to her class, and the tables show that her next goal is to enter the early international range. Her training for the upcoming year should centre on improved confidence with heavy singles, gradual increases in pressing volume, and building the consistency required for competition attempts.
A 90 kg strongman athlete with a 150 kg paused bench and a strong log press sits just below the national baseline for powerlifting but within a perfectly functional range for his sport. The tables show that his flat bench is structurally sound enough to support strongman overhead performance, but there is room to address chest-supported strength and early bar speed. His goal over the next training year should be to raise his paused flat bench enough to reinforce his overhead strength without diverting excessive resources from event training.
These profiles provide a template for lifters wanting to place themselves within the tier system. The same logic applies regardless of class or background.
Bench Standards Across Age and Training Age
Age influences recovery, performance, and rate of progress, but it does not replace the importance of training age. A 45-year-old lifter with two years of structured training should interpret the tiers differently from a 22-year-old with eight years of consistent preparation. The older lifter can use the tiers as direction rather than strict expectation, recognising that their rate of progress will follow the patterns typical of later-entry athletes: steady, methodical, and less linear than younger lifters with longer training histories. Masters athletes may “discount” the tiers slightly when judging their own progress, not because the standards change, but because the timeline required to move between tiers is longer. The structure remains the same, but the rate of adaptation is different. Training age often matters more than calendar age. Lifters with more accumulated years under the bar will see slower improvements at the top end, regardless of age. The table remains the anchor; the interpretation shifts according to the lifter’s history and physiology.
Methodology and Limitations
The tier ceilings come directly from OpenPowerlifting’s complete historical record. For each weight class, the heaviest raw benches ever recorded were examined. In classes with exceptional outliers, the top ten to twenty lifts were reviewed to establish a representative ceiling. These ceilings form the reference from which the tier bands were derived. The band percentages reflect typical distributions observed across hundreds of thousands of competition-standard lifts: national baseline approximates just over half of the world-class ceiling, national strong rises toward two-thirds, international standard occupies the seventy to eighty-five percent region, and world class extends from the mid-eighties up to the highest competitive lifts ever recorded. Generational represents the extreme upper limit. These values do not predict an individual’s long-term ceiling. They do not adjust for injury history, the influence of specific equipment setups, or lifters with highly individual leverages. They offer an organised structure built from the largest pool of real competition data available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What if my gym bench is higher than my competition bench? Use the competition number. Gym lifts can be useful for training but do not represent a fair comparison to the dataset.
What if I only bench touch-and-go? Estimate your paused bench conservatively. Most lifters lose three to six percent when holding a true pause.
What if I am cutting or bulking? Assess your bench at a stable bodyweight. Significant movement between classes changes the interpretation.
What if my technique differs from competition form? Use your best strict paused bench. The tables are built on formal standards and should be read using the same criteria.
What if my federation uses slightly different commands? Unless commands change the nature of the pause or lockout, the effect on the numbers is negligible. Use the tables as intended.
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button.
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button.
Comments