[quote]supermick wrote:
The range of motion is terrible, she has the bear handed down to her, falid to lock out and her ass is off the bench. Not kara’s problem but her feds imo.
[/quote]
dude, you do realize that is a TRAINING video. There are no feds, rules or judges in training. She was warming up. Do you do all your warmups with impeccable flawless form? You very well might, but I don’t and obviously Kara doesn’t either.
I have a difference of opinion, so take that for what it is worth.
RickJames is my illegitemate father. You need to pay up on that back child support bitch!!
[quote]Julius_Caesar wrote:
Sorry but there is no way that a woman is pressing 300 without both chemical and shirt assistence. It is simple biology that women do not have testosterone, hence are weaker then men are. While they have decent lower body strength, which is a result of child bearing, their upper body strength lacks.
I have never seen a woman at any of the gyms that I have worked at do more than 185. The one that I saw do 185 was a freak of nature ans very “manly” if you know what I mean.[/quote]
Dude, there are plenty of female athletes who can bench 135 within a year of training without much of a problem. Secondly, women do have testosterone, what are you talking about?
And, lastly, you don’t think a woman could build decent lower body strength by squatting? Or is there something magical about walking while bearing a child which makes women’s legs incredibly strong?
[quote]WideGuy wrote:
I think some people are taking certain comments as Kara not being an AMAZINING athelete and extrememely strong. No one in there right mind would say that. Agreed?[/quote]
extremely strong…yes and great powrlifting technique too i might add. amazing athlete, i dont know, i have only seen her bench press and heard of her squat and deadlift.
[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
Sorry but there is no way that a woman is pressing 300 without both chemical and shirt assistence. It is simple biology that women do not have testosterone, hence are weaker then men are. While they have decent lower body strength, which is a result of child bearing, their upper body strength lacks.
I have never seen a woman at any of the gyms that I have worked at do more than 185. The one that I saw do 185 was a freak of nature ans very “manly” if you know what I mean.
Dude, there are plenty of female athletes who can bench 135 within a year of training without much of a problem. Secondly, women do have testosterone, what are you talking about?
Bear
[/quote]
At the highschool where I teach, every year we have a couple of girls who have taken 2 levels of weights class, and who are challenging 135-maybe benching 125 and just missing 135 on their test day-and with crappy PL form and not necessarily official athletes. I remember a cheerleader who did 125 a week before testing.
We also had a female state champ gymnast who benched 135 x 4 and squatted 275 for 4 and could do 14 dead-hang overhand pullups-and she was probably 140-145 with a very wide shoulder span large lats, and she was by no means interested in powerlifting.
At my college (D II) we had one volleyball player bench 185 and another squat 345 more than deep enough.
Thankyou Dr. That’s pretty much all I was saying boys. Damn you guys are even more touchy then the boys on the aas forum. Makes me wonder… LOL! Anyway, I was being a little sarcastic when I said 100 lbs. But honestly I think I could get a quick 40-50 lbs once I got that arc thing down. I don’t think that’s a ridiculous statement at all.
Also her ass was off the bench on at least one of those attempts, but who give a shit really. I mentioned it because I thought it was no good in comp. if that happens. And I can see it’s not. That’s all she still strong, I’m sure she’s very nice and I respect any woman who lifts like that plus generally find an attractiveness about them that is just plain undeniable. Granted that’s very irrelevant
[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
Sorry but there is no way that a woman is pressing 300 without both chemical and shirt assistence. It is simple biology that women do not have testosterone, hence are weaker then men are. While they have decent lower body strength, which is a result of child bearing, their upper body strength lacks.
I have never seen a woman at any of the gyms that I have worked at do more than 185. The one that I saw do 185 was a freak of nature ans very “manly” if you know what I mean.
Dude, there are plenty of female athletes who can bench 135 within a year of training without much of a problem. Secondly, women do have testosterone, what are you talking about?
And, lastly, you don’t think a woman could build decent lower body strength by squatting? Or is there something magical about walking while bearing a child which makes women’s legs incredibly strong?
Bear
[/quote]
A logical, rational post that makes sense. Wow. That says nothing about who is and isn’t chemically enhanced of those women lifting serious poundage. But you have some misinterpretations of women’s strength Caesar and of physiology and biology.
[quote]reality check wrote:
Yes! The most ridiculous statement of the many ridiculous statments in this thread is that wideguy could bench an extra 100lbs with that arch. An example of the typical poster here, quick to jump in with unsubstantiated and stupid claims showing complete lack of any knowledge about anything. Was it also wideguy who said she looks ridiculous? I don’t think her goal was to look good while benching…go put your speedos on and oil up and leave the lifting to her.
[/quote]
As you may not be aware, you are also a typical poster here. Quick to jump in and insult.
[quote]Miserere wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
The rules vary by fed, but most say somehting along the lines of “the your upperback and you butt must remain in contact with the bench.” Hers do.
I thought her arse was in the air. Anyone else think so?[/quote]
yeah her arse was in the air…that’s why I wasn’t really impressed I give credit where credit is due and before someone chimes in saying you probably can’t bench more than her blah blah I use 225 as my warm up. I’m just calling it like it is. Now what really impressed me was seeing this woman bust out 15 real pull ups like it was nothing now that was impressive…
[quote]mattwray wrote:
supermick wrote:
The range of motion is terrible, she has the bear handed down to her, falid to lock out and her ass is off the bench. Not kara’s problem but her feds imo.
dude, you do realize that is a TRAINING video. There are no feds, rules or judges in training. She was warming up. Do you do all your warmups with impeccable flawless form? You very well might, but I don’t and obviously Kara doesn’t either.
I have a difference of opinion, so take that for what it is worth.
RickJames is my illegitemate father. You need to pay up on that back child support bitch!!
An activity that usually involves two or more people who dispute their superiority to the other. This is accomplished by the recitation of individual skills, exploits and accomplishments whose merit is questionable at best. Also, the purpose of discussing said activities serves no purpose but to prove superiority to the other.
Well- don’t we all feel just a wee bit like a crop of little weak bitches seeing this little gal pop off 4 bills? Yeah, you can say “it’s the cheat shirt”, “it’s the crazy arch”, “it must be drugs”, “she’s only 5 foot 3 and her ROM is so short”, it’s “sand-filled Wal-mart weights”. Really, you can cop out on this anyway you want. But unless you are a 148 lb woman who just pressed 400- you’re just talking.
Dude, there are plenty of female athletes who can bench 135 within a year of training without much of a problem. Secondly, women do have testosterone, what are you talking about?[/quote]
Men have 10-15 times more testosterone than women do. Testosterone is what causes the secondary sexual characteristics that make men look like men, the same way that estrogen does for women. This is why those transsexuals undergo estrogen therapy to grow tits and get the secondary sexual characteristics of females. Testosterone production also falls off with age for men which is why when we are old we get weak. It’s just biology.
I never said that women couldn’t bench 135, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they did, I just said that from years working and being around gyms that the typical strong chick does 100 and that the beasts do 185 raw.
I am not picking on women either. I don’t think that there are too many guys who can do 600 raw and without juice either. Just look at the history of bench pressing before gear was around.
[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
And, lastly, you don’t think a woman could build decent lower body strength by squatting? Or is there something magical about walking while bearing a child which makes women’s legs incredibly strong?
Bear
[/quote]
Yes they can build their leg strength up, I never said otherwise. What I said was that they have stronger lower bodies in relation to upper body. It would not surprise me to see a chick squatting 300 at all, but benching 300 NO WAY JOSE. Unless they are either juiced or wearing a shirt.
Dude, there are plenty of female athletes who can bench 135 within a year of training without much of a problem. Secondly, women do have testosterone, what are you talking about?
Men have 10-15 times more testosterone than women do. Testosterone is what causes the secondary sexual characteristics that make men look like men, the same way that estrogen does for women. This is why those transsexuals undergo estrogen therapy to grow tits and get the secondary sexual characteristics of females. Testosterone production also falls off with age for men which is why when we are old we get weak. It’s just biology.
I never said that women couldn’t bench 135, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they did, I just said that from years working and being around gyms that the typical strong chick does 100 and that the beasts do 185 raw.
I am not picking on women either. I don’t think that there are too many guys who can do 600 raw and without juice either. Just look at the history of bench pressing before gear was around.
Mr. Bear wrote:
And, lastly, you don’t think a woman could build decent lower body strength by squatting? Or is there something magical about walking while bearing a child which makes women’s legs incredibly strong?
Bear
Yes they can build their leg strength up, I never said otherwise. What I said was that they have stronger lower bodies in relation to upper body. It would not surprise me to see a chick squatting 300 at all, but benching 300 NO WAY JOSE. Unless they are either juiced or wearing a shirt.
[/quote]
Right on man! Not only that, but they should also stay in the kitchen and make babies, because there’s no way they could do a man’s job either.
Come off it. I imagine everyone stronger than you is on shit too. Kara has competed many times under drug tested conditions, so unless your proof is something more than “she’s broken the glass ceiling of powerlifting I was trying to keep her under”, please bring a wee bit more evidence before accusing her of something. I have seen girls with smaller BMI’s than Kara bench 200 raw with a pause drug free. Just because this chick benches more than you is no excuse for you to go accusing her of illegal activity.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Mr. Bear wrote:
Julius_Caesar wrote:
Sorry but there is no way that a woman is pressing 300 without both chemical and shirt assistence. It is simple biology that women do not have testosterone, hence are weaker then men are. While they have decent lower body strength, which is a result of child bearing, their upper body strength lacks.
I have never seen a woman at any of the gyms that I have worked at do more than 185. The one that I saw do 185 was a freak of nature ans very “manly” if you know what I mean.
Dude, there are plenty of female athletes who can bench 135 within a year of training without much of a problem. Secondly, women do have testosterone, what are you talking about?
Bear
At the highschool where I teach, every year we have a couple of girls who have taken 2 levels of weights class, and who are challenging 135-maybe benching 125 and just missing 135 on their test day-and with crappy PL form and not necessarily official athletes. I remember a cheerleader who did 125 a week before testing.
We also had a female state champ gymnast who benched 135 x 4 and squatted 275 for 4 and could do 14 dead-hang overhand pullups-and she was probably 140-145 with a very wide shoulder span large lats, and she was by no means interested in powerlifting.
At my college (D II) we had one volleyball player bench 185 and another squat 345 more than deep enough. [/quote]
What is it about “being interested in powerlifting” that you think will add 120 pounds to a bench press. I have seen some damn strong body builders bench over 400 raw and without a shirt or an arch at my gym. If you are strong you are strong period.
Likewise, their are powerlifters like myself who have been training for years and can’t do even 400 raw. Of course, the guys that are all benching over 400lbs. are juiced and I am natural but this is another story…
[quote]Xen Nova wrote:
To define 90% of this thread…
Dick Waving Contest:
An activity that usually involves two or more people who dispute their superiority to the other. This is accomplished by the recitation of individual skills, exploits and accomplishments whose merit is questionable at best. Also, the purpose of discussing said activities serves no purpose but to prove superiority to the other.
[/quote]
And then there are the fence riding pansies that never want to combat stupidity, but rather comment on those that are doing so from afar, so that they never have to sully themselves with that nasty business of “taking a side” or “having a mind of their own”.
Almost as bad as these people are the hypocrites that use the call of “dick waving” to, in fact, wave their dicks about their mental superiority in a thread that means nothing to them.
Free will, my man, you can critisize whoever you want. But one can’t help but find these critiques to be of minimal merit when they are leveled by internet Monday morning quarterbacks at the strongest (pound-for-pound) and perhaps the most consistent female bencher around now. Her lifts stand up to judging again and again- in a competetive landscape known for bombouts. Who’s opinion carries more weight in this matter then?- Internet commentators or real PL judges in several feds, on several occasions, in meets all over the country that actually have seen these lifts in person from three different angles?
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
so… by this logic, I can’t critisize anyone stronger than me? [/quote]
