[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
BALBO wrote:
Its a misprint.I meant if half of them could deadlift over 500 lb. and exactly half of them couldnt ,then it could be assumed than average is 500 lb.
No it couldn’t.
You’re thinking of a median, not an average, and it cannot just be assumed that they equal.
Learn some math.[/quote]
No,I was thinking about average and it can be ASSUMED.
I see that most people are undertrained in pull-ups.
When I say undertrained,I mean they didnt follow consistent routine for many years.
If you look at bench,you must admit that so many people started benching around 14-15 years old and have put so many hours into that.
Some guys when they started benching only benched 50 kg and through years of hard work eventually benched 150 kg.
I know so many people who could do 4-5 pull-ups without any training,but never bothered to do more than a few sets to failure while swinging their body.
Who the hell is setting up to do 50 pull-ups as a goal anyway? Not many people.
So we cannot compare the undertrained feat of 50 pull-ups with overtrained 1rm bench press.
Its comparing apples and oranges.
I bet that some hunter-gatherers that live in Amazona have much more impressive pull-up repetition set than their 1rm bench press.
Somebody pulled up this 50 pull-ups out of his ass which doesnt have to do anything with powerlifts that are mentioned in the same contest and then they even add 1 mile crap run for a good measure.
First,posters agreed that 50 pull-ups cannot be achieved while getting the powerlifts down,now they say that 50 pull-ups cannot be achieved alone.
Are you a bunch of sheeps or what?!
[quote]Racarnus wrote:
I can do a one arm chin, but I can only do about 25 strict pullups. I’ve never trained for strength endurance with these things. I just have a relatively efficient CNS.
Here’s a thread about a guy, Jason Armstrong, who broke the record for the most pullups performed within 12 hours. He scored 2406! Daily he would do over 500 a day, but his best for consecutive pullups was only 40.
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1345081
[/quote]
If you knew how to read…
you would know that he was able to do 40 consecutive pull-ups BEFORE he started his 6 months SPECIFIC preparation for this event.
His 12 hours ultra-endurance feat is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to performing consecutive pull-ups in one-set.
50 pullups is not achievable by everyone.
But to be fair, the pullup champ may not have been training for one huge set but rather to accomodate his strategy of high numbers over a longer period of time. I supppose he can answer that for himself seeing as how he posts here occasionally.
My own attempt at one big set ended when I hit 28. My form was fairly strict but I did use neutral grip which feels the best to me.
I stopped trying for big numbers in pullups because I thought my efforts were better served with other movements, but I did feel that I could have made more progress.
I think it took me about 3 months to get from 15 to 28. I did them 3x/day.
I really get a kick out of the fact that all of the smaller guys think that 3 plates is a lofty goal for bench, and all the bigger guys think that a 6 minute mile is an impossibility.
Also there seems to be a lot of talk about a 500lb Squat and a 500lb Deadlift. If you are Deadlifting the same as you Squat, then you’ve got issues.
I agree that some of the numbers that have been thrown out there are probably achievable by the average person, but not necessarily at the same time. Most “average” guys that busted their ass to get to a 500lb Squat would not also be able to get their mile time down at the same time, and training both of the simultaneously would be counter productive.
One final thought…coefficients for BW are bullshit. They aren’t linear. The only people that pay attention to these are the smaller guys who are hoping to make themselves look stronger. If I weigh 250lbs and can squat 500lbs and you weigh 200lbs and can squat 450lbs than I’m stronger than you. I don’t care if your coefficient is higher than mine, it doesn’t matter. Whoever can lift more weight is stronger. Period.
[quote]KiloSprinter wrote:
Maybe that’s why the deadlift is so unpopular, you can’t cheat at it to boost your ego.[/quote]
You can by doing RDLs.
[quote]Modi wrote:
I really get a kick out of the fact that all of the smaller guys think that 3 plates is a lofty goal for bench, and all the bigger guys think that a 6 minute mile is an impossibility.
Also there seems to be a lot of talk about a 500lb Squat and a 500lb Deadlift. If you are Deadlifting the same as you Squat, then you’ve got issues.
I agree that some of the numbers that have been thrown out there are probably achievable by the average person, but not necessarily at the same time. Most “average” guys that busted their ass to get to a 500lb Squat would not also be able to get their mile time down at the same time, and training both of the simultaneously would be counter productive.
One final thought…coefficients for BW are bullshit. They aren’t linear. The only people that pay attention to these are the smaller guys who are hoping to make themselves look stronger. If I weigh 250lbs and can squat 500lbs and you weigh 200lbs and can squat 450lbs than I’m stronger than you. I don’t care if your coefficient is higher than mine, it doesn’t matter. Whoever can lift more weight is stronger. Period. [/quote]
You have a point, but if one win his category with 450 lbs squat, and another don’t with 500 lbs, I’m pretty sure the former is better athlete.
Noone will argue, I think, that sport performance is a lot more dependent on relative strength than on absolute strength. Don’t go blindly absolutizing lifting maximum weight, no matter what, unless that’s what your needs set. Don’t dismiss accomplishments of guys, which don’t share your view on lifting, like the guy, who asked if Lamar Gant was anorexic.
[quote]mldj wrote:
Modi wrote:
I really get a kick out of the fact that all of the smaller guys think that 3 plates is a lofty goal for bench, and all the bigger guys think that a 6 minute mile is an impossibility.
Also there seems to be a lot of talk about a 500lb Squat and a 500lb Deadlift. If you are Deadlifting the same as you Squat, then you’ve got issues.
I agree that some of the numbers that have been thrown out there are probably achievable by the average person, but not necessarily at the same time. Most “average” guys that busted their ass to get to a 500lb Squat would not also be able to get their mile time down at the same time, and training both of the simultaneously would be counter productive.
One final thought…coefficients for BW are bullshit. They aren’t linear. The only people that pay attention to these are the smaller guys who are hoping to make themselves look stronger. If I weigh 250lbs and can squat 500lbs and you weigh 200lbs and can squat 450lbs than I’m stronger than you. I don’t care if your coefficient is higher than mine, it doesn’t matter. Whoever can lift more weight is stronger. Period.
You have a point, but if one win his category with 450 lbs squat, and another don’t with 500 lbs, I’m pretty sure the former is better athlete.
Noone will argue, I think, that sport performance is a lot more dependent on relative strength than on absolute strength. Don’t go blindly absolutizing lifting maximum weight, no matter what, unless that’s what your needs set. Don’t dismiss accomplishments of guys, which don’t share your view on lifting, like the guy, who asked if Lamar Gant was anorexic.[/quote]
Sports performance is based off skill for a HUGE part of it, if you super strong and fast but suck at your sport your not going to be good. Even in sports where you think just being strong will win like fighting, yet fedor who looks fairly unathletic is the best fighter in the world because he is extremely good at what he does.
[quote]mldj wrote:
Modi wrote:
One final thought…coefficients for BW are bullshit. They aren’t linear. The only people that pay attention to these are the smaller guys who are hoping to make themselves look stronger. If I weigh 250lbs and can squat 500lbs and you weigh 200lbs and can squat 450lbs than I’m stronger than you. I don’t care if your coefficient is higher than mine, it doesn’t matter. Whoever can lift more weight is stronger. Period.
You have a point, but if one win his category with 450 lbs squat, and another don’t with 500 lbs, I’m pretty sure the former is better athlete.
Noone will argue, I think, that sport performance is a lot more dependent on relative strength than on absolute strength. Don’t go blindly absolutizing lifting maximum weight, no matter what, unless that’s what your needs set. Don’t dismiss accomplishments of guys, which don’t share your view on lifting, like the guy, who asked if Lamar Gant was anorexic.[/quote]
Long story short, my point was about absolute strength. I wasn’t arguing about pound for pound or relative strength. If Athlete A can lift 500lbs and Athlete B can lift 450lbs then Athlete A is stronger.
Athlete B might be a better athlete, he might be more fit, he might win more competitions, he might even get laid more often, but Athlete A is stronger because he can lift more weight.
I care about absolute strength because I am a powerlifter. My goal is to lift more weight than anyone else in my weight class. I’m not married to my weight class. If I gain muscle as a result of gaining strength, I will compete in a higher weight class, plain and simple.
[quote]Modi wrote:
mldj wrote:
Modi wrote:
One final thought…coefficients for BW are bullshit. They aren’t linear. The only people that pay attention to these are the smaller guys who are hoping to make themselves look stronger. If I weigh 250lbs and can squat 500lbs and you weigh 200lbs and can squat 450lbs than I’m stronger than you. I don’t care if your coefficient is higher than mine, it doesn’t matter. Whoever can lift more weight is stronger. Period.
You have a point, but if one win his category with 450 lbs squat, and another don’t with 500 lbs, I’m pretty sure the former is better athlete.
Noone will argue, I think, that sport performance is a lot more dependent on relative strength than on absolute strength. Don’t go blindly absolutizing lifting maximum weight, no matter what, unless that’s what your needs set. Don’t dismiss accomplishments of guys, which don’t share your view on lifting, like the guy, who asked if Lamar Gant was anorexic.
Long story short, my point was about absolute strength. I wasn’t arguing about pound for pound or relative strength. If Athlete A can lift 500lbs and Athlete B can lift 450lbs then Athlete A is stronger.
Athlete B might be a better athlete, he might be more fit, he might win more competitions, he might even get laid more often, but Athlete A is stronger because he can lift more weight.
I care about absolute strength because I am a powerlifter. My goal is to lift more weight than anyone else in my weight class. I’m not married to my weight class. If I gain muscle as a result of gaining strength, I will compete in a higher weight class, plain and simple.
[/quote]
I hate you, you sonofabitch!
But seriously, you’re absolutely right in the sense of…well, absolute strength. So and so is stronger because they lift more weight.
But I disagree on the validity of this being because “you are a powerlifter”. I would rather be more advanced and have a better total for my weight class than be heavier, lift some more weight and be a whole extra ranking below. Everything aside, if I thought I could be just as competitive in the next weight class up, I’d do that, but one of the main reasons (aside from acting) I dropped from 220 down to 198 was that I felt I had a number of years more potential there than at the heavier weight.
Even though you’re letting yourself gain quite a bit of weight now, I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) it’s with the hope of still doing better in whatever weight class you end up in.
Saying that absolute strength is the only important thing because we are a powerlifter seems to be like some people (you know who I mean. 
) acting like we’re not powerlifters because we train and compete raw. For them, powerlifting is about moving the most weight total. We all have our own stipulations and “conditions” under which we try to improve, and I think that in general they are all valid.
I once saw a comedian do a bit about what it would be like to be the best boxer at like 114lbs, and he would come home and tell his woman, “I am the best fighter…POUND FOR POUND!” And then she would slap him around because she weighs 220lbs. It just sorta reminded me of this, haha.
-Matt
[quote]shizen wrote:
Sports performance is based off skill for a HUGE part of it, if you super strong and fast but suck at your sport your not going to be good. Even in sports where you think just being strong will win like fighting, yet fedor who looks fairly unathletic is the best fighter in the world because he is extremely good at what he does. [/quote]
Fedor looks unathletic?
So ripped abs are the key to visual athleticism?
When did you have to look good to have the honest right to be good?
[quote]Matt McGorry wrote:
Modi wrote:
mldj wrote:
Modi wrote:
One final thought…coefficients for BW are bullshit. They aren’t linear. The only people that pay attention to these are the smaller guys who are hoping to make themselves look stronger. If I weigh 250lbs and can squat 500lbs and you weigh 200lbs and can squat 450lbs than I’m stronger than you. I don’t care if your coefficient is higher than mine, it doesn’t matter. Whoever can lift more weight is stronger. Period.
You have a point, but if one win his category with 450 lbs squat, and another don’t with 500 lbs, I’m pretty sure the former is better athlete.
Noone will argue, I think, that sport performance is a lot more dependent on relative strength than on absolute strength. Don’t go blindly absolutizing lifting maximum weight, no matter what, unless that’s what your needs set. Don’t dismiss accomplishments of guys, which don’t share your view on lifting, like the guy, who asked if Lamar Gant was anorexic.
Long story short, my point was about absolute strength. I wasn’t arguing about pound for pound or relative strength. If Athlete A can lift 500lbs and Athlete B can lift 450lbs then Athlete A is stronger.
Athlete B might be a better athlete, he might be more fit, he might win more competitions, he might even get laid more often, but Athlete A is stronger because he can lift more weight.
I care about absolute strength because I am a powerlifter. My goal is to lift more weight than anyone else in my weight class. I’m not married to my weight class. If I gain muscle as a result of gaining strength, I will compete in a higher weight class, plain and simple.
I hate you, you sonofabitch!
But seriously, you’re absolutely right in the sense of…well, absolute strength. So and so is stronger because they lift more weight.
But I disagree on the validity of this being because “you are a powerlifter”. I would rather be more advanced and have a better total for my weight class than be heavier, lift some more weight and be a whole extra ranking below. Everything aside, if I thought I could be just as competitive in the next weight class up, I’d do that, but one of the main reasons (aside from acting) I dropped from 220 down to 198 was that I felt I had a number of years more potential there than at the heavier weight.
Even though you’re letting yourself gain quite a bit of weight now, I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) it’s with the hope of still doing better in whatever weight class you end up in.
Saying that absolute strength is the only important thing because we are a powerlifter seems to be like some people (you know who I mean. ) acting like we’re not powerlifters because we train and compete raw. For them, powerlifting is about moving the most weight total. We all have our own stipulations and “conditions” under which we try to improve, and I think that in general they are all valid.
I once saw a comedian do a bit about what it would be like to be the best boxer at like 114lbs, and he would come home and tell his woman, “I am the best fighter…POUND FOR POUND!” And then she would slap him around because she weighs 220lbs. It just sorta reminded me of this, haha.
-Matt[/quote]
Matt, my first post didn’t go through, so I reposted my last comment, but didn’t get into all of the details that I did on my first attempt. I put a disclaimer at the beginning of this last post, but it was removed for some reason.
You know me, and you know that every pound I gain is in hopes of adding to my total. I have all the respect in the world for everyone that gets out on the platform and competes, rather than just typing about it on their computer. We’ve competed together a couple of times now, and you absolutely have my respect. Pound for pound you are probably stronger than I am, so you know that is not what this is about.
I was simply talking about absolute strength in my first post. I still don’t like coefficients. I’m not competing against the 165ers or the 220’s or even the 308’s. When I compete, I go out there to lift as much as possible, and beat everyone in my weight class, and at the very least break my own PR’s. But I never put my numbers up against a SHW and say, well damn, if I was 350lbs I could press that too, because my coefficient is .523392 higher than yours, or whatever. If I can’t lift more than someone else, they are stronger than me. If I can lift more than them, then I am stronger.
[quote]Modi wrote:
Matt McGorry wrote:
Modi wrote:
mldj wrote:
Modi wrote:
One final thought…coefficients for BW are bullshit. They aren’t linear. The only people that pay attention to these are the smaller guys who are hoping to make themselves look stronger. If I weigh 250lbs and can squat 500lbs and you weigh 200lbs and can squat 450lbs than I’m stronger than you. I don’t care if your coefficient is higher than mine, it doesn’t matter. Whoever can lift more weight is stronger. Period.
You have a point, but if one win his category with 450 lbs squat, and another don’t with 500 lbs, I’m pretty sure the former is better athlete.
Noone will argue, I think, that sport performance is a lot more dependent on relative strength than on absolute strength. Don’t go blindly absolutizing lifting maximum weight, no matter what, unless that’s what your needs set. Don’t dismiss accomplishments of guys, which don’t share your view on lifting, like the guy, who asked if Lamar Gant was anorexic.
Long story short, my point was about absolute strength. I wasn’t arguing about pound for pound or relative strength. If Athlete A can lift 500lbs and Athlete B can lift 450lbs then Athlete A is stronger.
Athlete B might be a better athlete, he might be more fit, he might win more competitions, he might even get laid more often, but Athlete A is stronger because he can lift more weight.
I care about absolute strength because I am a powerlifter. My goal is to lift more weight than anyone else in my weight class. I’m not married to my weight class. If I gain muscle as a result of gaining strength, I will compete in a higher weight class, plain and simple.
I hate you, you sonofabitch!
But seriously, you’re absolutely right in the sense of…well, absolute strength. So and so is stronger because they lift more weight.
But I disagree on the validity of this being because “you are a powerlifter”. I would rather be more advanced and have a better total for my weight class than be heavier, lift some more weight and be a whole extra ranking below. Everything aside, if I thought I could be just as competitive in the next weight class up, I’d do that, but one of the main reasons (aside from acting) I dropped from 220 down to 198 was that I felt I had a number of years more potential there than at the heavier weight.
Even though you’re letting yourself gain quite a bit of weight now, I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) it’s with the hope of still doing better in whatever weight class you end up in.
Saying that absolute strength is the only important thing because we are a powerlifter seems to be like some people (you know who I mean. ) acting like we’re not powerlifters because we train and compete raw. For them, powerlifting is about moving the most weight total. We all have our own stipulations and “conditions” under which we try to improve, and I think that in general they are all valid.
I once saw a comedian do a bit about what it would be like to be the best boxer at like 114lbs, and he would come home and tell his woman, “I am the best fighter…POUND FOR POUND!” And then she would slap him around because she weighs 220lbs. It just sorta reminded me of this, haha.
-Matt
Matt, my first post didn’t go through, so I reposted my last comment, but didn’t get into all of the details that I did on my first attempt. I put a disclaimer at the beginning of this last post, but it was removed for some reason.
You know me, and you know that every pound I gain is in hopes of adding to my total. I have all the respect in the world for everyone that gets out on the platform and competes, rather than just typing about it on their computer. We’ve competed together a couple of times now, and you absolutely have my respect. Pound for pound you are probably stronger than I am, so you know that is not what this is about.
I was simply talking about absolute strength in my first post. I still don’t like coefficients. I’m not competing against the 165ers or the 220’s or even the 308’s. When I compete, I go out there to lift as much as possible, and beat everyone in my weight class, and at the very least break my own PR’s. But I never put my numbers up against a SHW and say, well damn, if I was 350lbs I could press that too, because my coefficient is .523392 higher than yours, or whatever. If I can’t lift more than someone else, they are stronger than me. If I can lift more than them, then I am stronger.
[/quote]
Hate when that happens. By the way, I love that I’m a college student and somehow posting about this at 12:30AM on a Friday instead of being out and about, haha. I need to get my priorities straight.
I appreciate that though, and didn’t think that you were saying anything otherwise. And you know you’d have my respect, even if you dropped to the 165s. As far as coefficients, they are certainly skewed towards lighter lifters, there is no doubt about that.
I see what you’re saying now, and I agree that that is fucking ridiculous, haha. Coefficients also shouldn’t take the place of common sense and are more useful for people who want to stay in lighter weight classes to judge their own progress more than for someone in a lighter class to compare to a lifter in a higher weight class. But I think we can both agree that a 300lb man benching 200, squatting 300 and deadlifting 400 is fatter than he is strong. Although noone needs a calculator to figure that out.
I guess the only place where we really differ is that my main goal in a meet is hitting a PR and I don’t really care if everyone else beats me. I mean, yes, I care, haha, but I can’t do anything about that that I haven’t done in prep for the meet, so it seems needless for me to worry about. I think the only meets where placing counts is in national and world meets. Afterall, I got 1st place in our first comp together because I was the only one in my weight class, with shittier lifts than when I got third at our 2nd meet competing against untested equipped lifters, haha. It all depends on the turnout. You and I certainly like to compete on our own terms, haha.
Anyway, this discussion has gotten way off topic…
So Modi, can the average man be expected to bench 225lbs 100% RAW AND LIFETIME DRUG FREE ALL NATURAL?! 
-Matt
My goal is to squat more than Modi while weighing 50lbs less.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
shizen wrote:
Sports performance is based off skill for a HUGE part of it, if you super strong and fast but suck at your sport your not going to be good. Even in sports where you think just being strong will win like fighting, yet fedor who looks fairly unathletic is the best fighter in the world because he is extremely good at what he does.
So ripped abs are the key to visual athleticism?
[/quote]
YES! This is why Marsuiz is the best strongman ever! He has way better abzzzzzz than Kaz. Not to mention a better tan!
Don’t even get me started on Zydrunas Savickas!
haha
[quote]Matt McGorry wrote:
So Modi, can the average man be expected to bench 225lbs 100% RAW AND LIFETIME DRUG FREE ALL NATURAL?!
-Matt[/quote]
I am not Modi, but I believe this is possible. Only if the average man uses wrist wraps and creatine. So possible yes… raw and drug free no.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
shizen wrote:
Sports performance is based off skill for a HUGE part of it, if you super strong and fast but suck at your sport your not going to be good. Even in sports where you think just being strong will win like fighting, yet fedor who looks fairly unathletic is the best fighter in the world because he is extremely good at what he does.
Fedor looks unathletic?
So ripped abs are the key to visual athleticism?
When did you have to look good to have the honest right to be good?
[/quote]
Well look at most fighters most look like they do some weight training and are kind of big. He looks average mostly, but yeah I guess other skill sports like tennis,golf,basketball don’t have great physiques also. And exactly you don’t have to look good to be good, I was just saying you might not look huge and strong but you can be.-he was my example-
Also was going more at that he has fought people MUCH stronger then him physically yet still destroys them because he is VERY skilled fighter .
[quote]Matt McGorry wrote:
Anyway, this discussion has gotten way off topic…
So Modi, can the average man be expected to bench 225lbs 100% RAW AND LIFETIME DRUG FREE ALL NATURAL?!
-Matt[/quote]
Ahh, to the real question at hand. Yes Matt, I believe this is a feasible number for the average male, sadly though, many will not even achieve this level of strength.
Unless of course it is done on a computer, in which case the average male can get expect about a 50% carryover to their lifts. It’s similar to adding gear, but the increases are much greater when adding a keyboard.