Gymnastics Biceps

Off Topic
81

[quote]tmcg86 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:

Wait, let me make this clearer for you since you seem to be missing the point. At the top weight classes, height is not as important as the overall mass of the individual. It isn’t that “taller” lifters seem to be the best. It is that the biggest and strongest lifters are carrying more muscle or body mass than anyone else allowing them to move more weight.

If there was some short guy who could match a 300lb’er for body mass, muscle and strength, your observation might change.

But its not possible for a short guy to be 300lb and relatively lean.

I mean, i wouldn’t accuse lee priest of not training hard enough for ONLY being 200-225 competing.

Height and frame is a factor in determining how big you can get. A shorter guy will always beat a taller guy if they weigh the same, but with the same training the man with the bigger frame, taller or shorter, will win.

And by the way, the ‘distance of the bar’ argument is bullshit. I’m guessing you go to the same gym as the people at the start of this video and you need to justify it somehow :smiley:

Look at these pussys, not being 300lbs… obviously not training as hard as you guys who were 180 before even touching a weight on a 6 foot plus frame.[/quote]

god damnit, you are quite the dipshit.

82

[quote]gilesdm wrote:
Westclock wrote:

I am however refuting their strength in comparison to a majority of even the untrained male population.

hahahahahahahaha! I’m sorry, but that made me laugh!

[/quote]

I completly agree with you, gilesdm. I think that westclock has no idea what he is talking about. Olympic gymnasts are superhuman, and ridiculously strong. I bet a gymnast could do atleast 60 solid chinups, which i think is alittle above average.

83

[quote]ABenns wrote:
gilesdm wrote:
Westclock wrote:

I am however refuting their strength in comparison to a majority of even the untrained male population.

hahahahahahahaha! I’m sorry, but that made me laugh!

I completly agree with you, gilesdm. I think that westclock has no idea what he is talking about. Olympic gymnasts are superhuman, and ridiculously strong. I bet a gymnast could do atleast 60 solid chinups, which i think is alittle above average.
[/quote]

Agian, 60 “solid chinups” is not impressive when you weight 130 pounds.

None of you defending gymnasts seem to understand how bodyweight lifts work.

84

[quote]ABenns wrote:
gilesdm wrote:
Westclock wrote:

I am however refuting their strength in comparison to a majority of even the untrained male population.

hahahahahahahaha! I’m sorry, but that made me laugh!

I completly agree with you, gilesdm. I think that westclock has no idea what he is talking about. Olympic gymnasts are superhuman, and ridiculously strong. I bet a gymnast could do atleast 60 solid chinups, which i think is alittle above average.
[/quote]

that’s cute.

But how is a 400 pound deadlift superhuman. THAT is what we’re talking about. I can probably do 15-20 easy chins at 190. And I haven’t chinned all summer. Cut off ROM, and 50 pounds of bodyweight, and you can probably double that. gee guys I’m impressive because I can do chins at 140 pounds bodyweight with really short arms. They are VERY good at what they do. But, as far as moving weights goes, they aren’t superhuman by any means.

85

[quote]Westclock wrote:
ABenns wrote:
gilesdm wrote:
Westclock wrote:

I am however refuting their strength in comparison to a majority of even the untrained male population.

hahahahahahahaha! I’m sorry, but that made me laugh!

I completly agree with you, gilesdm. I think that westclock has no idea what he is talking about. Olympic gymnasts are superhuman, and ridiculously strong. I bet a gymnast could do atleast 60 solid chinups, which i think is alittle above average.

Agian, 60 “solid chinups” is not impressive when you weight 130 pounds.

None of you defending gymnasts seem to understand how bodyweight lifts work.
[/quote]

This is stupid also, its like saying ‘Hey If I was built just like the worlds strongest man, I could do that too’ well your not and you can’t. Sure his body allows him to do amazing things, but to just say ‘well its just because he has good genetics for that’ is retarded. What gymnasts do is AMAZING, and you can’t take anything away from that.

This whole discussion is stupid, its short guys saying what taller athletes do is not special, and taller guys saying what short guys do is not special. There both impressive, but there are reasons why they can do the things they do that should not be ignored though. Yet that does not make it not impressive.

86

[quote]shizen wrote:
Westclock wrote:
ABenns wrote:
gilesdm wrote:
Westclock wrote:

I am however refuting their strength in comparison to a majority of even the untrained male population.

hahahahahahahaha! I’m sorry, but that made me laugh!

I completly agree with you, gilesdm. I think that westclock has no idea what he is talking about. Olympic gymnasts are superhuman, and ridiculously strong. I bet a gymnast could do atleast 60 solid chinups, which i think is alittle above average.

Agian, 60 “solid chinups” is not impressive when you weight 130 pounds.

None of you defending gymnasts seem to understand how bodyweight lifts work.

This is stupid also, its like saying ‘Hey If I was built just like the worlds strongest man, I could do that too’ well your not and you can’t. Sure his body allows him to do amazing things, but to just say ‘well its just because he has good genetics for that’ is retarded. What gymnasts do is AMAZING, and you can’t take anything away from that.

This whole discussion is stupid, its short guys saying what taller athletes do is not special, and taller guys saying what short guys do is not special. There both impressive, but there are reasons why they can do the things they do that should not be ignored though. Yet that does not make it not impressive.
[/quote]

Everything non-manlets do is more impressive :).

87

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Reef wrote:
The best powerlifters are all actually pretty tall guys. According to some of you, with the shorter range of motion, shouldn’t the shortest guys be winning all of these competitions? Look at Kennelly, Bolton, etc. Look at strongman - all those guys are well over 6ft.

Also, sure it’s easier for shorter guys to look bigger with less overall mass. At the same time, fat gains are also more noticeable. If a 5-4, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat and a 6-2, 140 lbs guy gains 20 lbs of fat, who would it be more noticeable on?

Also, Ronnie Coleman never had a problem winning all those Olympias at 5-11.

The taller guys in the top weight classes are also carrying MUCH more muscle overall than most very short lifters. If some guy weighs all of 300+lbs of mostly lean body mass, why would you assume that height would still be the greatest advantage?

Are you all just being obtuse on purpose? No one wrote that shorter lifters will be able to outlift everyone. It was written that the distance is less to travel in lifting a weight. Damn, some of you are constricted in thought.

It was defnitely implied that those who are shorter have an easier time benching and deadlifting. There’s plenty of short guys in powerlifting in every class, yet all the taller lifters seem to be the best. Do you think Andy Bolton would still be deadlifting 1000 lbs if he was 5-6?

Wait, let me make this clearer for you since you seem to be missing the point. At the top weight classes, height is not as important as the overall mass of the individual. It isn’t that “taller” lifters seem to be the best. It is that the biggest and strongest lifters are carrying more muscle or body mass than anyone else allowing them to move more weight.

If there was some short guy who could match a 300lb’er for body mass, muscle and strength, your observation might change.

Imagine a guy at 5’8 300 pounds. That would be hilarious.

And Id rather be able to dead 1100 pounds, thank you very much, its not at all a toss up for me.

And @ Reef, I dont claim to be all that tall or heavy, Im only 6 foot, most of the guys were talking about are 6’5 or so, they make me look like a shrimp.

I have no idea what that point of progression is, because it will be radically different depending on who your comparing.

I do know that it is a bell curve in leverage to overall mass ratios.

And it does amuse me how butt hurt short guys have been today in this thread, Im not complaining at all about leverages in shorter power lifters, Im simply stating how it works.

[/quote]

I can’t find I Bio on him, but Andrew “Stumpy” Raynes. If I remember correctly he was around 5’4" 280 when he made it to the finals of WSM. He was also a bodybuilder and powerlifter.

88

So people who lift weights are better at lifting weights and gymnasts are better at gymnastics.

When it comes to bodybuilding, at the end of the day it’s how you look with your shirt off that counts.

89

[quote]Sliver wrote:
So people who lift weights are better at lifting weights and gymnasts are better at gymnastics.

When it comes to bodybuilding, at the end of the day it’s how you look with your shirt off that counts.[/quote]

Er… you shouldn’t even have to take it off, you know.

90

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hate it when people try to use “relative strength” as if it means anything to someone who is trying to be “absolutely strong” in the gym. A 500lbs benchpress is impressive. I am not impressed by someone lifting 250lbs no matter if they are 4’2" and weigh 89lbs.[/quote]

I guess they must not impress you at all then.

I get tired of the whole relative strength thing like a lot of people do, but to completely disregard it as not being impressive is also stupid IMO. Just because lighter weight Olympic Weightlifters aren’t snatching and clean and jerking as much as a 300lbs superheavyweight, it doesn’t mean they’re not strong as shit, and I can’t see how someone can’t be impressed by someone like Pyrros Dimas.

91

[quote]counterfeitsoda wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I hate it when people try to use “relative strength” as if it means anything to someone who is trying to be “absolutely strong” in the gym. A 500lbs benchpress is impressive. I am not impressed by someone lifting 250lbs no matter if they are 4’2" and weigh 89lbs.

I guess they must not impress you at all then.
[/quote]

I am not sure how slow someone must be to assume that I was speaking about women when I wrote those stats.

92

Beyond the ‘absolute strength’ argument, I think what is more impressive about any elite level athlete is his/her work and recovery capacity.

There is no way the average lifter, even if they are stronger in a particular lift, has the same ability to workout for hours a day, almost everyday and be able to handle it.

Someone let this thread die now.

93

[quote]Professor X wrote:
counterfeitsoda wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I hate it when people try to use “relative strength” as if it means anything to someone who is trying to be “absolutely strong” in the gym. A 500lbs benchpress is impressive. I am not impressed by someone lifting 250lbs no matter if they are 4’2" and weigh 89lbs.

I guess they must not impress you at all then.

I am not sure how slow someone must be to assume that I was speaking about women when I wrote those stats.

[/quote]

Obviously the example is going to the extreme, but don’t tell me you honestly don’t see the relavence. With someone like Becca Swanson benching 551lbs, surely these girls strength couldn’t be impressive to you, after all, only absolute strength matters, right? Or does someone need to have tits to get props for relative strength?

Like I said, I get tired of people thinking they’re hot shit for having “good relative strength” when they’re 150lbs, but just because I’m going for absolute strength, doesn’t mean that extreme relative strength isn’t impressive in some cases. Is Pyrros Dimas somehow not impressive to you, because he doesn’t squat and deadlift as much as Mariusz Pudzianowski?

94

I think Dimas would be more impressive if he lifted heavier in a heavier weightclass.

Mariusz, might actually hit his all time genetic potential because he’ll get bigger to improve his competitiveness.

95

[quote]counterfeitsoda wrote:
Professor X wrote:
counterfeitsoda wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I hate it when people try to use “relative strength” as if it means anything to someone who is trying to be “absolutely strong” in the gym. A 500lbs benchpress is impressive. I am not impressed by someone lifting 250lbs no matter if they are 4’2" and weigh 89lbs.

I guess they must not impress you at all then.

I am not sure how slow someone must be to assume that I was speaking about women when I wrote those stats.

Obviously the example is going to the extreme, but don’t tell me you honestly don’t see the relavence. With someone like Becca Swanson benching 551lbs, surely these girls strength couldn’t be impressive to you, after all, only absolute strength matters, right? Or does someone need to have tits to get props for relative strength?

Like I said, I get tired of people thinking they’re hot shit for having “good relative strength” when they’re 150lbs, but just because I’m going for absolute strength, doesn’t mean that extreme relative strength isn’t impressive in some cases. Is Pyrros Dimas somehow not impressive to you, because he doesn’t squat and deadlift as much as Mariusz Pudzianowski?[/quote]

Are you trying to tell me what impresses me? I don’t follow women’s powerlifting because it doesn’t interest me. I RESPECT them, but I don’t look up to them because I don’t aspire to be a woman powerlifter.

No matter what, a woman lifting a weight above 250lbs is NOTHING like a man doing the same. They aren’t even on the same planet. I don’t care if the guy is a winged fairy all of 3 inches tall, I am not impressed by him lifting 250lbs.

If that impresses YOU, so be it.

96

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Beyond the ‘absolute strength’ argument, I think what is more impressive about any elite level athlete is his/her work and recovery capacity.

There is no way the average lifter, even if they are stronger in a particular lift, has the same ability to workout for hours a day, almost everyday and be able to handle it.

Someone let this thread die now.[/quote]

Agreed. One of the strongest and biggest guys in my gym has been working out for 3 years. However, he was a gymnast for 6 years before that. And he wasn’t even elite (he is genetically gifted though, but most gymnasts are). Go figure. If an elite gymnast started training with weights for size and strenght, he would outlift most of the so-called lifters not only because of short levers, but because of superior work and recover capacity and neural efficiency.

97

lol finding this thread funny. stating the obvious but anyway- taller guys need to eat way way more than shorter guys to bulk up. Therefore its cheaper and eating wise easier for shorter guys to get the calorie intake!

Therefore its easier for shorter guys to bulk

98

It’s normal lighter guys to be able to obtain higher relative strength that heavier guys - that’s why elite raw total for 114’s are around 8xBW and for +275’s - around 6xBW. That’s why Taranenko only clean and jerked 76 kg more than Suleymanoglu.

But saying triple bodyweight deadlift doesn’t impress you, only because the guy was light… That’s just stupid. Keep in mind that if he is built like you, his shorter range of motion is compensated by the shorter levers his muscles apply force to.

For a guy around 132, 400 lbs deadlift is supposed to be harder than 504 lbs deadlift for a guy around 198, according to Rippetoe. Add to that that the gymnast never specifically trained for the exercise, and that his main focus is in the upper body, which doesn’t contribute as much to DL as the lower body. And that’s not even Olympic level gymnast. So the point that they aren’t strong is ignorant at best.

But when talking about bodybuilding, I don’t think gymnast routines should be considered.

99

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Those guys are very short and are genetically predisposed for that activity. The shorter you are, the less lean body mass you actually have to carry to look extremely muscular. I doubt that guy’s biceps are much over 15-16" tops.

They also train for several HOURS a day relying mostly on upper body strength so unless you actually plan on getting into gymnastics full time and also plan on fitting a good 6 or 7 hours a day of training into your schedule, your attention could be placed better elsewhere.[/quote]

I i should print this out in leaflet form and hand it to every moron who asks me about getting arms like a gymnast

100

[quote]mldj wrote:

But saying triple bodyweight deadlift doesn’t impress you, only because the guy was light… That’s just stupid. [/quote]

It’s stupid to not be impressed with a 250lbs lift?

What the fuck is wrong with some of you? 250lbs is not heavy. I am betting every single one of you who worry more about what the lifter weighs than how much they are lifting is a short guy or a very small guy.