[quote]Professor X wrote:
You are getting flamed for making shit up and then writing it here. [/quote]
Then show me a strength atlete without roids who has as much muscle (not weight) as Coleman or Yates. If all that muscle were functional pro-odybuilders should have been able to rack up way more than current world records.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
A few hours? Are you claiming that intramuscular injections produce huge increases in strength in “a few hours”? Enough to be measurably different at a workout soon afterwards?
I’m saying that there are performance drugs as well as the ones building mass. And I’m saying that a huge portion of their strength is a product of substances.
I’m also saying that they should be laughed at(any ghost wolf comes to mind). How could you possibly take pro-bodybuilding or Mr Olympia seriously?
[/quote]
How can you change the subject? To degrade today’s pro bodybuilders means you degrade Arnold as well. I don’t personally degrade any of them for simply being pro bodybuilders and you still have not mentioned what drug causes a huge increase in strength right before a workout or “a few hours” before.
[quote]DPH wrote:
if someone takes creatine and adds 10% to their strength is that fake too?[/quote]
Creatine isn’t a steroid. I gives you a slight boost and retains water. Compared to the chemo-labs the pros ingest.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You are getting flamed for making shit up and then writing it here.
Then show me a strength atlete without roids who has as much muscle (not weight) as Coleman or Yates. If all that muscle were functional pro-odybuilders should have been able to rack up way more than current world records.
[/quote]
WTF? They aren’t powerlifters so why are you comparing them to powerlifters? I am stronger than most people I see in the gym. I NEVER do one rep maxes because it means nothing to me to see how much I can only lift one time. Since there are bodybuilders who do powerlift (like Johnnie Jackson), you aren’t making much sense. I don’t see many people their weight pushing up that much FOR REPS even in powerlifting. That is like comparing pro bodybuilders to Olympic Sprinters. You have to train for whatever sport you compete in. Why set the standard different for bodybuilders?
This is great - I can actually imagine Prof X screaming like the dude in his avatar.
Majin - You have nothing. You don’t understand what you are talking about. Go and be small, and eat your raw food. Just stop posting pointless shit.
Congratulations X,
You have finally read my point correctly. Every pussyfuck seems to think that I want to put down bodybuilding as a whole by stating that bodybuilder’s muscle size doesn’t correlate with their maximal strength. I train for mass myself so it would be oximoronic for me to bash somebody who trains for looks. I also made comments regarding Pro-bodybuilding being a circus. I’m sure that requires no explanation. Shit, this thing took way too much time.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Congratulations X,
You have finally read my point correctly. Every pussyfuck seems to think that I want to put down bodybuilding as a whole by stating that bodybuilder’s muscle size doesn’t correlate with their maximal strength. I train for mass myself so it would be oximoronic for me to bash somebody who trains for looks. I also made comments regarding Pro-bodybuilding being a circus. I’m sure that requires no explanation. Shit, this thing took way too much time.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? Care to go back and explain which drugs cause huge increases in strength right after they are taken? I mean, shit, it isn’t like I forgot. Size DOES correlate with strength. To get bigger, you have to get stronger. PERIOD. You aren’t making any sense. Someone who has 16" arms will not be at or near the same strength level if they end up with 20" arms years later. The goal in bodybuilding, however, is not to compete in a specific weight class for strength. That makes what you are writing jibberish.
My original comments were that if a bodybuilder’s entire musculature would be a result of maximal strength training they would be the strongest athletes on earth. Obviously that isn’t the case. Furthermore pro’s use mass and performance drugs to create the vast majority of their gains. In a nutshell there were two points:
Bodybuilders train for mass and appearance - they have more muscle than weightlifters, but aren’t as strong. Again, that is not a flame yet most people took it as such.
Pro-bodybuilding is really over the top with the drugs. They are just competing on who can pump more roids and live. The strength they possess is largely atributed to doping.
[quote]Majin wrote:
My original comments were that if a bodybuilder’s entire musculature would be a result of maximal strength training they would be the strongest athletes on earth. Obviously that isn’t the case.[/quote]
If the goal in bodybuilding is NOT maximal strength training, what point do you think you have made?
[quote]
Furthermore pro’s use mass and performance drugs to create the vast majority of their gains. In a nutshell there were two points:
How do you know this? Have you compared a max lift from Ronnie Coleman? His is a “weight lifter”. If most bodybuilders never even do one rep maxes, how did you come to this conclusion?
Pro bodybuilding has a definite image problem. However, you are getting flamed for what you stated when you wrote they take drugs right before they lift and this is why they are strong. QUIT IGNORING THAT YOU SAID THIS. Either stop posting in this thread, admit that you said it and explain it, or you will get this brought up in every lame ass post you ever write from here on out.
You don’t even know what “doping” is so at least stick to words you know.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If the goal in bodybuilding is NOT maximal strength training, what point do you think you have made?[/quote]
The topic went into bodybuilders strength. The amount of musculature isn’t necessarily in direct proportion with it’s strength. It was a comment.
If you don’t train for limit strength your progress in it is only going to be as good as the overlap from bb taining. And there’s no point going through this with pros because they are pharmaceutically loaded.
They do take performance enhancing drugs as well prior to working out(several hours). I’ve seen people do it in my neighborhood and their strength skyrocketed. I’m sure if these guys can do it then the pros are all over it.
It’s performance-enhancing drugs as far as I know and I believe I used the word in a correct manner.
[quote]DPH wrote:
there are a shit load of small professional fighters no stronger that Lance Armstrong is…
[/quote]
that was the single most stupid and false statement ever written on this site. Sorry, but that was retarded.
Have you ever just wrestled around with a 130lb pro boxer? I doubt it, cause if you had you wouldn’t have said that.
Would anyone care to lend me a handfull of shit so I can throw it?
I’m not sure if anyone has realised this yet but the basic argument is flawed.
Sure, you cna generalize things like: the average bear would be stronger than the average rabbit. Due to the fact that the actual SPECIES: bear, is gentically predisposed to being stronger than a rabbit. However there is no species divide between bodybuilders and powerlifters and strongmen etc… therefore you can’t say a large bodybuilder’s muscle mass is mostly sarcoplasmic, unless bodybuilders were a different species that were gentically predisposed to having more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
How the hell could you possible know how strong someone was based off their size? One comparison people don’t often make is: a pair of huge bodybuilders standing next to each other. Coincidentally they are precisely the same dimensions. However one could easily be TWICE as strong as the other one. Unless you have evolved to be able to differentiate between different types of hypertrophy from sight alone, then you can’t tell whether it is non-functional mass or not.
I don’t see how you could define the border between bodybuilder and powerlifter anyway… you could be both.
There is no way to win this argument as the basic principals are bullshit.
Also, i agree with DPH:
When some twat throws in a side-comment about how he kicked someone’s ass it is extremely unsubtle.
Not sure how it sounded when they say it to the mirror in a deep voice, but in typing it is extremely, obviously, pathetically overcompensatory.
The thing I don’t understand is this. If you’re a bodybuilder in the strictest definition, you should only be concerned about appearence. Appearence is what wins shows. But you see countless top bodybuilders using dummy plates in photos and videos, along with making strength claims. No Top bodybuilder in the past 25 years have done anything worth spit in any strength sport.There hasn’t been a bodybuilder in the WSM since '77 when Franco and Lou got their asses handed to them by a retired 0-lifter.Bodybuilding has morphed into something very different from the beatnicks of muscle beach in the 40-50’s. Bodybuilders today train a collection of parts, not the body as an unit.Coleman wouldn’t fare too well in an untested fed at his weight, but Tommy Kono won an olympic gold medal 10 months after winning the MR. Universe.
[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
that was the single most stupid and false statement ever written on this site. Sorry, but that was retarded.
[/quote]
naw…
the stupidest thing ever written on this site is that pathetic definiton for ‘functional strength’ of yours that I easily shot down…
[quote]
Have you ever just wrestled around with a 130lb pro boxer? I doubt it, cause if you had you wouldn’t have said that.[/quote]
I’m sure that you enjoy spending endless hours wrestling around with 130 lbs guys…but I think I’ll leave the ‘fun boy’ stuff like that to guys like you…
[quote]Kim Jong-il wrote:
Also, i agree with DPH:
When some twat throws in a side-comment about how he kicked someone’s ass it is extremely unsubtle.
Not sure how it sounded when they say it to the mirror in a deep voice, but in typing it is extremely, obviously, pathetically overcompensatory.[/quote]
I really don’t understand what makes you guys so unfomfortable when it comes to talking about fighting. I’ve gotten the living shit kicked out of me before too. What’s the big deal?
I don’t fabricate stories to sound tough, I don’t even know you guys. My point was that I have had altercations with guys bigger and stronger than me, that once they grabbed onto me I was like “Holy shit, they are weak as fuck for the size of them!” You know, utter surprise. I’ve been on the opposite end too where I grabbed ahold of smaller guys thinking I was going to through them around like rag dolls but uh-uh, no way. They were surprisingly strong as hell.
If you don’t like hearing about 2 men fighting, stop reading this, put your panties back on and go watch figure skating or something! LOL
[quote]DPH wrote:
Have you ever just wrestled around with a 130lb pro boxer? I doubt it, cause if you had you wouldn’t have said that.
I’m sure that you enjoy spending endless hours wrestling around with 130 lbs guys…but I think I’ll leave the ‘fun boy’ stuff like that to guys like you…[/quote]
I wish someone could explain what the purpose is of people like you talking shit about things they obviously know nothing about! Why do you do it? You obviously have never had a physical altercation with a pro level fighter so why sit there and make this comment and that about them? Can you please tell me why? If not then just STFU 
Why does every have to argue about how they got their muscles big. Who cares if some wants to just be strong or wants to be functional, whatever… to each his own. When I’m at the gym or at a bar I don’t look at a guy and think he’s on the juice… frankly I’m too worried about my own training and life to judge another persons. Good luck to everybody with their training wether it be bodybuilding, sport specific training, power lifting, olympic lifting, strong man and just remember to work hard.
[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
Kim Jong-il wrote:
Also, i agree with DPH:
When some twat throws in a side-comment about how he kicked someone’s ass it is extremely unsubtle.
Not sure how it sounded when they say it to the mirror in a deep voice, but in typing it is extremely, obviously, pathetically overcompensatory.
I really don’t understand what makes you guys so unfomfortable when it comes to talking about fighting. I’ve gotten the living shit kicked out of me before too. What’s the big deal?
I don’t fabricate stories to sound tough, I don’t even know you guys. My point was that I have had altercations with guys bigger and stronger than me, that once they grabbed onto me I was like “Holy shit, they are weak as fuck for the size of them!” You know, utter surprise. I’ve been on the opposite end too where I grabbed ahold of smaller guys thinking I was going to through them around like rag dolls but uh-uh, no way. They were surprisingly strong as hell.
If you don’t like hearing about 2 men fighting, stop reading this, put your panties back on and go watch figure skating or something! LOL[/quote]
Because it is chidish and ‘proves’ absolutely nothing. It didn’t add to your argument. But it did say alot about your need to be perceived a certain way.
And trust me, it doesn’t help the story to add that you’ve had the shit kicked out of you as well.
I think most men will tell you that in real life it doesn’t make one a figure skater to avoid physical confrontation. And most of us would say that those of you who would feel the need to talk about their physical prowess, just like your financial status, probably have neither.
[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
I wish someone could explain what the purpose is of people like you talking shit about things they obviously know nothing about!
[/quote]
kind of like you talking about ‘functional strength’?
[quote]
Why do you do it? You obviously have never had a physical altercation with a pro level fighter so why sit there and make this comment and that about them? Can you please tell me why? If not then just STFU :)[/quote]
have you been in a pro fight with a good pro fighter? if not then YOU shut the fuck up.