Not necessarily. The guy who can do like 2000 situps isn’t necessarily strong. He just taught his body how to do a particular movement.
THAT BEING SAID, I do agree that the stuff performed by gymnasts (male and female alike) is impressive.
I don’t think you can compare them really. It’s apples and oranges. Unless I’m missing something
Edit: holy shit I didn’t realize this thread is so long. Flame on!
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
Wait so lets say you have a guy 130 pounds and he maxes out 250 on the bench, and you have a 300 pound guy bench 300 pounds, you would be more impressed of the fat ass right? I mean he is moving more weight.
/lmao. Some of you over grown apes are too full of it. [/quote]
A 300 lb guy who could only bench 300 lb would be pathetic and obviously over fat. I mean sub 200 guys can bench 300 lbs. I think you have a skewed view of how strong a big guy (not fat) can lift.
No one is talking about taking a skinny kid who weighs 150 and benches 225 and doubling his weight by adding 150 lbs of fat and zero muscle. Come on…
[quote]jCaesar88 wrote:
Not necessarily. The guy who can do like 2000 situps isn’t necessarily strong. He just taught his body how to do a particular movement.
THAT BEING SAID, I do agree that the stuff performed by gymnasts (male and female alike) is impressive.
I don’t think you can compare them really. It’s apples and oranges. Unless I’m missing something
[/quote]
Back to gymnasts–
My wife is a former gymnast (state champion), did acrobatic team cheerleading in college, and coached gymnastics later. She’s 5’-4" and has weighed between 100-105 pounds since I’ve known her from high school.
In her 30’s after 2 kids and not visiting a gym regularly for several years, she’s still outright “ripped”-- you can see every freakin muscle.
She can still do running flips/tumbles, dozens of pullups, and ring stuff.
However, she can barely open a heavy door, lift a shovel full of dirt, or open a jar lid.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
jCaesar88 wrote:
Not necessarily. The guy who can do like 2000 situps isn’t necessarily strong. He just taught his body how to do a particular movement.
THAT BEING SAID, I do agree that the stuff performed by gymnasts (male and female alike) is impressive.
I don’t think you can compare them really. It’s apples and oranges. Unless I’m missing something
Back to gymnasts–
My wife is a former gymnast (state champion), did acrobatic team cheerleading in college, and coached gymnastics later. She’s 5’-4" and has weighed between 100-105 pounds since I’ve known her from high school.
In her 30’s after 2 kids and not visiting a gym regularly for several years, she’s still outright “ripped”-- you can see every freakin muscle.
She can still do running flips/tumbles, dozens of pullups, and ring stuff.
However, she can barely open a heavy door, lift a shovel full of dirt, or open a jar lid.[/quote]
waits for JmoUFC to come in to tell us how wrong we are and what big losers we are and how we don’t know shit
First of all I was only using a fat 300 pound guy as an example. The point was a heavier guy lifting a heavier weight BUT he’s obviously not that strong, but he still moved more weight.
According to some of you guys you would be more impressed of the 300 pound fat guy (Which he obviously is weak and out of shape) benching 300 pounds then the 130 pound guy benching 250, because after all he did put up 50 more pounds right?
[quote]DJS wrote:
Liv92 wrote:
Wait so lets say you have a guy 130 pounds and he maxes out 250 on the bench, and you have a 300 pound guy bench 300 pounds, you would be more impressed of the fat ass right? I mean he is moving more weight.
/lmao. Some of you over grown apes are too full of it.
A 300 lb guy who could only bench 300 lb would be pathetic and obviously over fat. I mean sub 200 guys can bench 300 lbs. I think you have a skewed view of how strong a big guy (not fat) can lift.
No one is talking about taking a skinny kid who weighs 150 and benches 225 and doubling his weight by adding 150 lbs of fat and zero muscle. Come on…[/quote]
Jesus Christ your a moron. I was using an extreme example on purpose. the point is still no matter how weak you guys seem to think he is, hes still more inexpressive then the 130 pound guy benching 50 pounds less then him right? At least thats what you guys are saying. More weight = more impressiveness no matter the BW ratio or w/e.
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
According to some of you guys you would be more impressed of the 300 pound fat guy (Which he obviously is weak and out of shape) benching 300 pounds then the 130 pound guy benching 250, because after all he did put up 50 more pounds right? [/quote]
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
First of all I was only using a fat 300 pound guy as an example. The point was a heavier guy lifting a heavier weight BUT he’s obviously not that strong, but he still moved more weight.
According to some of you guys you would be more impressed of the 300 pound fat guy (Which he obviously is weak and out of shape) benching 300 pounds then the 130 pound guy benching 250, because after all he did put up 50 more pounds right? [/quote]
Real life isn’t a bunch of set rules, sure a bunch of us may have said something “along those lines” but when you use a horrible extreme example, even on purpose, you need to use some common sense. We aren’t idiots, we can think on the fly, and tell that in this case the lighter bench is “more impressive”(used loosely). Nobody can sit here and list out every possible scenario of relative vs absolute strength feats and which is more impressive on a case by case basis, so they make generalizations and expect people to use some reasoning skills as they read.
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
First of all I was only using a fat 300 pound guy as an example. The point was a heavier guy lifting a heavier weight BUT he’s obviously not that strong, but he still moved more weight.
According to some of you guys you would be more impressed of the 300 pound fat guy (Which he obviously is weak and out of shape) benching 300 pounds then the 130 pound guy benching 250, because after all he did put up 50 more pounds right? [/quote]
No, your scenario is stupid as hell because you are comparing somebody who is obviously a very serious weightlifter (benching 250 @130lbs) to an either casual lifter or untrained schmuck (300lb bench at bw of 300lbs).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
IgneLudo wrote:
I think a lot of women like the physique . . .
Then you’re wrong.
Most women would find the pic you posted above revolting.
Aren’t you like 170lbs & a Nazi supporter?[/quote]
Yes, what of it?
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
DJS wrote:
Liv92 wrote:
Wait so lets say you have a guy 130 pounds and he maxes out 250 on the bench, and you have a 300 pound guy bench 300 pounds, you would be more impressed of the fat ass right? I mean he is moving more weight.
/lmao. Some of you over grown apes are too full of it.
A 300 lb guy who could only bench 300 lb would be pathetic and obviously over fat. I mean sub 200 guys can bench 300 lbs. I think you have a skewed view of how strong a big guy (not fat) can lift.
No one is talking about taking a skinny kid who weighs 150 and benches 225 and doubling his weight by adding 150 lbs of fat and zero muscle. Come on…
Jesus Christ your a moron. I was using an extreme example on purpose. the point is still no matter how weak you guys seem to think he is, hes still more inexpressive then the 130 pound guy benching 50 pounds less then him right? At least thats what you guys are saying. More weight = more impressiveness no matter the BW ratio or w/e.
[/quote]
See now this is pretty funny. Your example was so extreme that it made no point at all. That is moronic. Your assumptions of what everyone thinks are simply off.
Lets bring this down to earth shall we…
Any male of average height can get a 250 lb bench. So that is not super impressive.
Not everyone can take it to the next level. Everyone can get “in shape”. Not everyone has the work ethic, and diet in order to grow far beyond “in shape”. That is something to aspire to.
Maybe not to you… and thats ok.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yeah, and to some people’s thinking, an ant is “stronger” than a T-Rex.
If you want to think like that, that is your prerogative.[/quote]
That was… the best way to explain. If I had your idea of thinking I would of just said it instead of trying to explain myself in a whole paragraph.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Michael Jordan was amazing to watch…but if you think he was just an “average” person who worked hard, you would be wrong. He was gifted. Therefore, his hard work led him to greater heights than someone of much lesser talent would ever experience. I am sure somewhere there was some kid trying really hard on a basketball court who never got anywhere near as good. According to you, they deserve the same respect?
If the kid worked as long and hard as Michael Jordan did, showed as much character and commitment, and busted his ass with equal dedication, then YES he gets the same level of respect from me. I’m impressed by what people do, not by what is handed to them.
What is the alternative? Why would someone deserve RESPECT just because they were born a certain way? How does that in any way say anything about what they have accomplished?
Do you think it makes sense to be proud and take credit for something that was handed to you?
If you haven’t noticed that is how the entire fucking world works. It has been that way since the beginning of time. Kings were praised for nothing but their blood line. Warriors were praised for an innate ability to fight and kill. Athletes are praised for greater than average genetic ability. Politicians are praised for above average up bringing and education.
Have you not noticed this? Do you think those average people crying for more praise can erase this?
Average people wanting more credit for shit they haven’t accomplished is why this country is fucked up right now.
It doesn’t matter how hard you worked if you have nothing to show for it.[/quote]
A pornstar works hard very hard. I mean she works harder than most other pornstars thats why she deserves more praise.??? Does that make sense? I completly agree with you if you got nothing to show then do not complain and life is just not fair.
Gymnasts do have large muscles and ripped hot lookin` bodies for sure 
[quote]Hotlover wrote:
Gymnasts do have large muscles and ripped hot lookin` bodies for sure
[/quote]
Holy Ghey!
dont tell me he doesnt got huge muscles: 15) Ivan Ivankov - vault (Olympic games 2000 Sydney - AA) - YouTube
probably bigger than most of you
[quote]Clintern wrote:
dont tell me he doesnt got huge muscles: 15) Ivan Ivankov - vault (Olympic games 2000 Sydney - AA) - YouTube
probably bigger than most of you[/quote]
Nope.
EDIT
Oh, I forgot to say, thanks for bumping this shitty thread.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Clintern wrote:
dont tell me he doesnt got huge muscles: 15) Ivan Ivankov - vault (Olympic games 2000 Sydney - AA) - YouTube
probably bigger than most of you[/quote]
Nope.
[/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Clintern wrote:
probably bigger than most of you[/quote]
Nope.
[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
Not that I really have a problem with it in this particular situation, but call outs should be reserved for those with public progress themselves.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Clintern wrote:
probably bigger than most of you[/quote]
Nope.
[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
Not that I really have a problem with it in this particular situation, but call outs should be reserved for those with public progress themselves.[/quote]
Here is a vid from christmas, if my pictures weren’t enough