Apparently he can’t do one. Can’t blame this one on excess body weight. Judging by how he looks, he obviously isn’t carrying the body mass of 300lbs+ NFL lineman. In all likelihood, he must have shitty tendon attachment sites as it pertains to leverage for pull-up performance.
This article reminded me of a few top/talented athletes back in high school. Regardless of the sport, one thing these guys had in common was not too impressive stats in the weight room. One of the guys had to be dragged into the weight room as he hated lifting weights. Yet he dominated on the football field.
I realize lifting can serve the purpose of conditioning the body as it relates to injury minimization/prevention. But can it make an already talented athlete a better athlete performance wise? Or is it more beneficial for those who are less talented when it comes to performance enhancement?
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Who gives a shit unless your sport is weightlifting. How well you perform in the sport is the focus.
Kevin Durant IIRC got pinned trying to bench 135 before he was drafted into the NBA. Kinda worked out for KD.
Strength training will always be good for an athlete. As long as it’s not a detriment to time spent improving how he can perform playing that sport.[/quote]
Durant couldn’t bench 185. That’s what the NBA uses at its combine.
I think it is actually surprising that such a top level athlete can’t do a pull-up, but I am sure that he has athletic abilities that are elite, which is why he is the top prospect. Speed, Agility, Power… I doubt they really care if he can do a pull-up or not.
And to answer the question… All other things being equal between two athletes, the stronger athlete is superior. If this hockey player focused his attention on being able to do 10 pullups, I don’t think its really all that clear that that would make him a better hockey player. You could maybe argue that if he improved his squat, that would carry over into being able to produce more force, but even then, hockey is not a lifting competition its a sport that requires a lot of skill, coordination, agility, etc… Also, if strength is very low for an athlete, I think they stand to gain a lot more by getting stronger.
Every athlete needs different things. If a basketball player can already squat twice his body weight and wants to jump higher, you probably wouldnt address that by having him get stronger. If he could barely squat his body weight, than that would need attention and he would stand to gain more from improving strength. I believe that improving strength does make a person a better athlete, being able to produce more force is most definitely a good thing in any sport… But There are many qualities other than maximum force production that can make an athlete great.
Some years back I was waiting for a flight to come in at JFK and I was at the bar. I realized that I was sitting next to a famous NHL NY Islander, Dennis Potvin and we struck up a conversation. Nice guy and all, but what got my attention was the size of his thighs, simply massive under the suit he had on.
So from the waist up they may not all be oak trees, but the legs are what does most of the work out on the ice. If you can’t skate your ass off, you have no place in the NHL. On the other hand, some players are simply built like brick shithouses all over.
Just read the article and what’s more confusing than his inability to do a pullup is the fact that he’s repeatedly referenced as the NHL’s “top prospect” yet he’s projected to go third…
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Just read the article and what’s more confusing than his inability to do a pullup is the fact that he’s repeatedly referenced as the NHL’s “top prospect” yet he’s projected to go third…[/quote]
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Just read the article and what’s more confusing than his inability to do a pullup is the fact that he’s repeatedly referenced as the NHL’s “top prospect” yet he’s projected to go third…[/quote]
It’s hockey, hockey is Canadian, that should explain everything.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Just read the article and what’s more confusing than his inability to do a pullup is the fact that he’s repeatedly referenced as the NHL’s “top prospect” yet he’s projected to go third…[/quote]
It’s not that confusing: The link that refers to him as the number one prospect redirects you to the NHL website. The mock draft was done by NESN.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Just read the article and what’s more confusing than his inability to do a pullup is the fact that he’s repeatedly referenced as the NHL’s “top prospect” yet he’s projected to go third…[/quote]
It’s not that confusing: The link that refers to him as the number one prospect redirects you to the NHL website. The mock draft was done by NESN.[/quote]
I didn’t read the article, only the comments here, but could it be a positional thing as well? Like, do forwards and goalies tend to get drafted higher than their ‘rating.’ Think something like the QB effect in the NFL draft(some other positions have the same effect but to a much lesser extreme).
I don’t follow hockey, but I just saw this and thought the thread was worth a bump. The kid was signed by the Calgary Flames, but he now needs shoulder surgery and will be out 4-6 months.
“This was somewhat expected as the team learned this week that Bennett had been nursing a bad shoulder for an extended period of time. … Bennett explained to the media that he didn’t disclose the injury because he wanted to play and didn’t think it was that big of a deal.”
Turns out the kid was nursing some kind of shoulder injury for a while and it finally caught up to him in a big way. How much this accounts for his pull-up performance and his only benching 150x2 at the same combine (while being 6’1" and 178 pounds), who knows. But I think it’s safe to say it was a factor, whether it’s due to not being honest with his trainers along the way or just being like a “typical” hockey dude and ignoring his injuries.
