[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Why dont you go buy yourself a pair of ace briefs, a size too large, put them on, and see if you get a PR. My bet is on you getting thrown all over the place because you don’t know what the hell you are doing.
If you had those, and knew how to use them, and trained in them, then yeah…you might be able to hit 500…but easily is a different story.[/quote]
Did I somehow bruise your ego?
[quote]dfreezy wrote:
malonetd wrote:
What’s ridiculous? I listed things people don’t need to play their chosen sport, yet these things are generally accepted.
The comparison to a sprinter’s shoes is probably the most appropriate, though, since the level of increased performance is comparable.
I think nearly every example you listed was a piece of equipment that is required by the official rules for organized competition of the sport or is needed for the direct safety of the athlete/participant.[/quote]
You don’t NEED lighter tennis rackets, or better shoes. They just allow you to perform better. You wouldn’t NEED pads in football if you just told the players not to hit as hard, or just tag. But they’ve been a part of the sport for so long people just accept them.
And now, correct me if i’m wrong, has equipmend, and the use of shirts, suits, knee wraps, tennis balls, bed sheets and a rake load of other things been a part of powerliftng for longer than it hasn’t??
[quote]Hanley wrote:
And now, correct me if i’m wrong, has equipmend, and the use of shirts, suits, knee wraps, tennis balls, bed sheets and a rake load of other things been a part of powerliftng for longer than it hasn’t??[/quote]
LOL! As I was reading this, I got distracted by the noise in another cubicle. It was just as I read “rake”. The first thing to go through my head was, “How the fuck do you use a rake as gear?” I now have mental images of guys taping part of a rake to the back of their shins to “encourage” them to recover from the squat or be stabbed.
[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
Hanley wrote:
And now, correct me if i’m wrong, has equipmend, and the use of shirts, suits, knee wraps, tennis balls, bed sheets and a rake load of other things been a part of powerliftng for longer than it hasn’t??
LOL! As I was reading this, I got distracted by the noise in another cubicle. It was just as I read “rake”. The first thing to go through my head was, “How the fuck do you use a rake as gear?” I now have mental images of guys taping part of a rake to the back of their shins to “encourage” them to recover from the squat or be stabbed.[/quote]
You mean you don’t use a rake? Wait till you go to Niagara. They use all the gardening implements.
I seriously don’t know how you use tennis balls or bed sheets; for power lifting at rate.
[quote]Hanley wrote:
dfreezy wrote:
malonetd wrote:
What’s ridiculous? I listed things people don’t need to play their chosen sport, yet these things are generally accepted.
The comparison to a sprinter’s shoes is probably the most appropriate, though, since the level of increased performance is comparable.
I think nearly every example you listed was a piece of equipment that is required by the official rules for organized competition of the sport or is needed for the direct safety of the athlete/participant.
You don’t NEED lighter tennis rackets, or better shoes.
[/quote]
No, but you do need a racket and shoes.
Safety equipment just doesn’t relate to gear in my book. We must read different books, because that parallel makes no sense.
[quote]
But they’ve been a part of the sport for so long people just accept them.
And now, correct me if i’m wrong, has equipmend, and the use of shirts, suits, knee wraps, tennis balls, bed sheets and a rake load of other things been a part of powerliftng for longer than it hasn’t??[/quote]
At one point it wasn’t.
Shoes in running are probably the closest parallel anyone has made. But it would probably be a closer comparison if runners today started showing up with sprung “kangaroo” shoes to get an advantage.
You really think the difference between raw and equipped lifting is akin to real hard hitting American football vs. touch football? That’s one of the dumber, more disrespectful comparisons on the thread honestly. Not having pads really seems to limit the hitting in rugby. You should get them to add more pads so the game would be better.
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
I seriously don’t know how you use tennis balls or bed sheets; for power lifting at rate.[/quote]
Tennis balls behind the knees… Wrap up a bed sheet into a squat suit…
I’m not joking.
Why use gear?
Because lifting bigger weights rocks, duh.
No sarcasm.
[quote]Hanley wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
I seriously don’t know how you use tennis balls or bed sheets; for power lifting at rate.
Tennis balls behind the knees… Wrap up a bed sheet into a squat suit…
I’m not joking.[/quote]
Do you mean to make the suit fit tighter with the sheet? What do the tennis balls do behind the knees? Boy, I feel like a gear virgin.
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
Hanley wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
I seriously don’t know how you use tennis balls or bed sheets; for power lifting at rate.
Tennis balls behind the knees… Wrap up a bed sheet into a squat suit…
I’m not joking.
Do you mean to make the suit fit tighter with the sheet? What do the tennis balls do behind the knees? Boy, I feel like a gear virgin.[/quote]
Tennis balls can help stop you in the hole or give a little more spring. I’ve heard some used tennis balls under wraps for bench back when you could still wrap elbows
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hanley wrote:
dfreezy wrote:
malonetd wrote:
What’s ridiculous? I listed things people don’t need to play their chosen sport, yet these things are generally accepted.
The comparison to a sprinter’s shoes is probably the most appropriate, though, since the level of increased performance is comparable.
I think nearly every example you listed was a piece of equipment that is required by the official rules for organized competition of the sport or is needed for the direct safety of the athlete/participant.
You don’t NEED lighter tennis rackets, or better shoes.
No, but you do need a racket and shoes.
They just allow you to perform better. You wouldn’t NEED pads in football if you just told the players not to hit as hard, or just tag.
Safety equipment just doesn’t relate to gear in my book. We must read different books, because that parallel makes no sense.
But they’ve been a part of the sport for so long people just accept them.
And now, correct me if i’m wrong, has equipmend, and the use of shirts, suits, knee wraps, tennis balls, bed sheets and a rake load of other things been a part of powerliftng for longer than it hasn’t??
At one point it wasn’t.
Shoes in running are probably the closest parallel anyone has made. But it would probably be a closer comparison if runners today started showing up with sprung “kangaroo” shoes to get an advantage.
You really think the difference between raw and equipped lifting is akin to real hard hitting American football vs. touch football? That’s one of the dumber, more disrespectful comparisons on the thread honestly. Not having pads really seems to limit the hitting in rugby. You should get them to add more pads so the game would be better.[/quote]
I can see the parallels in football. They didn’t use any pads or helmets in the old days. Then they added pads/helmets, and they slowly evolved into the nearly impervious shells used today. As the pads evolved, the hitting and gameplay both improved drastically. Same general idea with gear.
[quote]Hanley wrote:
You don’t NEED lighter tennis rackets, or better shoes. They just allow you to perform better. You wouldn’t NEED pads in football if you just told the players not to hit as hard, or just tag. But they’ve been a part of the sport for so long people just accept them.[/quote]
I was referring to the examples malonetd listed on page 1.
Ha, that’s one thing that cracks me up when “purists” talk about “the good old days” before gear and steroids “ruined powerlifting”…
Guys were still taking shit, and they were wrapping their elbows and putting tennis balls behind their knees. The guys competing in World Championships back in the 70’s didn’t care about any of the stuff the purists whine about these days, all they cared about was lifting the most weight possible and winning. Iv seen some of those guys remark that if the stuff that is available today was available then, they would be using it, without a doubt.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You don’t NEED lighter tennis rackets, or better shoes.
…
No, but you do need a racket and shoes.
…
Safety equipment just doesn’t relate to gear in my book. We must read different books, because that parallel makes no sense.
[/quote]
DD,
It’s diffifult to find EXACT comparisons between sports for any purpose since all have differing objectives/means of accomplishing those objectives.
Try not to get hung up on the inclusion of the instrument used (ie. a golf club) and look at the argument being made as to to technical efficiencies made to the instrument.
For example, golf clubs used 100+ years ago, are still sufficient to play a round of golf. If all competitors limited their use to those clubs, results would likely still be similar only with higher scores. But the inclusion of new technologies/materials gives an edge to whomever acquires/masters the technology first.
The closest direct comparison I can think of is goalie equipment in hockey. Although the need for protective equipment is present, they do not need a trapper, blocker or large pads. Smaller items would provide the same level of protection, it would just add goals to the scoresheet.
Now, hockey is a sport (NHL anyway) that has addressed the issue of enhanced gear by limiting (but not eliminating) the size of the goalie equipment mentioned. NHL goalie gear now as opposed to 5-6 years ago would be the difference between single and multi ply!
Lastly, dude there is no need to insult raw rugby just to pimp your gear-whoring football. 
[quote]masonator wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Hanley wrote:
dfreezy wrote:
malonetd wrote:
What’s ridiculous? I listed things people don’t need to play their chosen sport, yet these things are generally accepted.
The comparison to a sprinter’s shoes is probably the most appropriate, though, since the level of increased performance is comparable.
I think nearly every example you listed was a piece of equipment that is required by the official rules for organized competition of the sport or is needed for the direct safety of the athlete/participant.
You don’t NEED lighter tennis rackets, or better shoes.
No, but you do need a racket and shoes.
They just allow you to perform better. You wouldn’t NEED pads in football if you just told the players not to hit as hard, or just tag.
Safety equipment just doesn’t relate to gear in my book. We must read different books, because that parallel makes no sense.
But they’ve been a part of the sport for so long people just accept them.
And now, correct me if i’m wrong, has equipmend, and the use of shirts, suits, knee wraps, tennis balls, bed sheets and a rake load of other things been a part of powerliftng for longer than it hasn’t??
At one point it wasn’t.
Shoes in running are probably the closest parallel anyone has made. But it would probably be a closer comparison if runners today started showing up with sprung “kangaroo” shoes to get an advantage.
You really think the difference between raw and equipped lifting is akin to real hard hitting American football vs. touch football? That’s one of the dumber, more disrespectful comparisons on the thread honestly. Not having pads really seems to limit the hitting in rugby. You should get them to add more pads so the game would be better.
I can see the parallels in football. They didn’t use any pads or helmets in the old days. Then they added pads/helmets, and they slowly evolved into the nearly impervious shells used today. As the pads evolved, the hitting and gameplay both improved drastically. Same general idea with gear.[/quote]
I thought there were always pads of some sort. You could also argue that guys got bigger and faster and facilitated the need for better safety equipment.
Regardless, you are arguing sports like rugby should “progress” to using more padding?
hi
I haven’t worn elbow pads in the last 10 seasons of hockey, 4 of which were at the senior A level.
I’m fuuuuuuuuuucking hardcore.
[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You don’t NEED lighter tennis rackets, or better shoes.
…
No, but you do need a racket and shoes.
…
Safety equipment just doesn’t relate to gear in my book. We must read different books, because that parallel makes no sense.
DD,
It’s diffifult to find EXACT comparisons between sports for any purpose since all have differing objectives/means of accomplishing those objectives.
Try not to get hung up on the inclusion of the instrument used (ie. a golf club) and look at the argument being made as to to technical efficiencies made to the instrument.
For example, golf clubs used 100+ years ago, are still sufficient to play a round of golf. If all competitors limited their use to those clubs, results would likely still be similar only with higher scores. But the inclusion of new technologies/materials gives an edge to whomever acquires/masters the technology first.
The closest direct comparison I can think of is goalie equipment in hockey. Although the need for protective equipment is present, they do not need a trapper, blocker or large pads. Smaller items would provide the same level of protection, it would just add goals to the scoresheet.
Now, hockey is a sport (NHL anyway) that has addressed the issue of enhanced gear by limiting (but not eliminating) the size of the goalie equipment mentioned. NHL goalie gear now as opposed to 5-6 years ago would be the difference between single and multi ply!
Lastly, dude there is no need to insult raw rugby just to pimp your gear-whoring football. :)[/quote]
lol
Still all of those examples are evolutions of equipment REQUIRED to do the sport. You cannot play golf sans club. You are comparing golf with a poorly designed club vs. a better one to lifting in a poorly designed suit vs. a better one? That isn’t raw lifting you’re talking about then
I can bench bare assed, I can’t golf without a club.
I also separate belt use vs. wraps, suits shirts. The difference is that you still do all the work with a belt. the belt doesn’t store and rebound energy.
Also I was saying rugby wouldn’t be better with football style pads even if it would allow players to “hit harder”.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
also, comparing playing chess on a chessboard to lifting weight with briefs or a shirt is retarded. the chessboard is a fundamental part of the game, a bench shirt isnt fundamental to bench pressing.
If people can play chess without a board – and people do all the time – then it’s not really a fundamental part of the game anymore.
I have to defend chess. I know a lot of chess players that now wear gear. Their speed in hitting the clock is amazing. Plus they can en passant like no one’s business.[/quote]
and you dont need a bat to play baseball
or a ball to play soccer
or shoes to walk
or a bed to sleep
you dont even need barbells, dumbells or various other machines to get stronger either.
i know so because ive done all these things.
how does that relate to powerlifting though?
it doesnt.
it doesnt have to do with ADDING an element either, it has to do with taking one away. youre good at math, you should know theres a big difference between addition and subtraction.
i stand by my statement that powerlifting is to basketball
as powerlifting with gear is to slamball.
one is essentially the standard, the >most basic< form.
the other theres an ADDED element and suddenly things become inflated, instead of people lifting more they jump higher and further.
…One thing is for sure, using gear does not measure your true strength. It measures how good you are in lifting WITH the gear and how much of your strength can you translate to a bigger weight.
Me, personally, I wouldn’t be impressed if a 700 pound geared deadlifter can only deadlift 200 pounds without it, but I am impressed of the fact that he managed to create an innovation.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
masonator wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Hanley wrote:
dfreezy wrote:
malonetd wrote:
What’s ridiculous? I listed things people don’t need to play their chosen sport, yet these things are generally accepted.
The comparison to a sprinter’s shoes is probably the most appropriate, though, since the level of increased performance is comparable.
I think nearly every example you listed was a piece of equipment that is required by the official rules for organized competition of the sport or is needed for the direct safety of the athlete/participant.
You don’t NEED lighter tennis rackets, or better shoes.
No, but you do need a racket and shoes.
They just allow you to perform better. You wouldn’t NEED pads in football if you just told the players not to hit as hard, or just tag.
Safety equipment just doesn’t relate to gear in my book. We must read different books, because that parallel makes no sense.
But they’ve been a part of the sport for so long people just accept them.
And now, correct me if i’m wrong, has equipmend, and the use of shirts, suits, knee wraps, tennis balls, bed sheets and a rake load of other things been a part of powerliftng for longer than it hasn’t??
At one point it wasn’t.
Shoes in running are probably the closest parallel anyone has made. But it would probably be a closer comparison if runners today started showing up with sprung “kangaroo” shoes to get an advantage.
You really think the difference between raw and equipped lifting is akin to real hard hitting American football vs. touch football? That’s one of the dumber, more disrespectful comparisons on the thread honestly. Not having pads really seems to limit the hitting in rugby. You should get them to add more pads so the game would be better.
I can see the parallels in football. They didn’t use any pads or helmets in the old days. Then they added pads/helmets, and they slowly evolved into the nearly impervious shells used today. As the pads evolved, the hitting and gameplay both improved drastically. Same general idea with gear.
I thought there were always pads of some sort. You could also argue that guys got bigger and faster and facilitated the need for better safety equipment.
Regardless, you are arguing sports like rugby should “progress” to using more padding?[/quote]
No, but I am saying there would be many better hits with more pads. Just like more weight is lifted with gear.
Regardless of anyone’s preference, gear is here to stay.