[quote]RickJames wrote:
But there won’t be any video of a stupid rep contest, sorry. Maybe after the Arnold. It has been completely explained why 225x46 in a partial rep fashion is not a world-beating performance, but you can’t understand it. You are mentally bankrupt. Please go on and respond…your stupid posts are quite entertaining. While you’re at it, post a video of your lifts. Odds are you actually do work sets with 225, which is sad. If you had any strength at all, you would understand exactly what we’ve been talking about on this thread.
[/quote]
World beating performance? WTF? Some of you are so full of shit it isn’t even funny. If anyone takes this so seriously as to try to compare it to some world record, you are a dumbass. This is THE one sign to you being a dumbass that should be used for all future dumbass endeavors.
Bravo! If someone posts a video of himself doing 46 worse reps with the same weight, will he get defenders also? Doubtful.
LOL. I want to see the development of anyone claiming they can do the same and how easy it is. Please post pictures of yourself. There seems to be much talk. Where are the cameras? Stop talking and do it.[/quote]
Because obviously development=strength.
My 2 cents. This man is obviously strong. But in a contest, whether exhibition or sanctioned, you have to have a measureable aspect to the lift. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the other people in this exhibition did not use the exact ROM. Not a stretch.
If he locked out he would have gotten in the upper 30’s no doubt.
But if you saw a vid of a smaller newb on this forum post him repping 225 for 10 reps this way you would laugh him off the board and tell him to eat a sammich.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
RickJames wrote:
But there won’t be any video of a stupid rep contest, sorry. Maybe after the Arnold. It has been completely explained why 225x46 in a partial rep fashion is not a world-beating performance, but you can’t understand it. You are mentally bankrupt. Please go on and respond…your stupid posts are quite entertaining. While you’re at it, post a video of your lifts. Odds are you actually do work sets with 225, which is sad. If you had any strength at all, you would understand exactly what we’ve been talking about on this thread.
World beating performance? WTF? Some of you are so full of shit it isn’t even funny. If anyone takes this so seriously as to try to compare it to some world record, you are a dumbass. This is THE one sign to you being a dumbass that should be used for all future dumbass endeavors.
[/quote]
Learn to follow a conversation. He is sitting here saying that none of us (including the guys I train with) could POSSIBLY come close to beating the 46 partial reps. Being able to beat EVERYONE responding semi-negatively to this thread along with the guys I lift with would pretty much be a world-beating performance. THIS is what he was implying, and WHY I used that term. Before you go off on someone, figure out what the fuck you’re talking about and remove the foot from your mouth.
[quote]RickJames wrote:
Professor X wrote:
RickJames wrote:
But there won’t be any video of a stupid rep contest, sorry. Maybe after the Arnold. It has been completely explained why 225x46 in a partial rep fashion is not a world-beating performance, but you can’t understand it. You are mentally bankrupt. Please go on and respond…your stupid posts are quite entertaining. While you’re at it, post a video of your lifts. Odds are you actually do work sets with 225, which is sad. If you had any strength at all, you would understand exactly what we’ve been talking about on this thread.
World beating performance? WTF? Some of you are so full of shit it isn’t even funny. If anyone takes this so seriously as to try to compare it to some world record, you are a dumbass. This is THE one sign to you being a dumbass that should be used for all future dumbass endeavors.
Learn to follow a conversation. He is sitting here saying that none of us (including the guys I train with) could POSSIBLY come close to beating the 46 partial reps. Being able to beat EVERYONE responding semi-negatively to this thread along with the guys I lift with would pretty much be a world-beating performance. THIS is what he was implying, and WHY I used that term. Before you go off on someone, figure out what the fuck you’re talking about and remove the foot from your mouth.
[/quote]
The guys you lift with aren’t here shooting their mouth off about how ill-legit his performance was. You are, however. Got a camera?
There’s been a lot written on here about how whatever he did was ok because “it wasn’t a legit contest.” That it’s fair to competitors who did lock out because the winner didn’t get any prizes.
There aren’t different degrees of contests “oh, this is more of a contest than that one.” None of this subjectivist, relativist nonsense about defining it the way that you feel, or moving the bar to wherever you want: it either IS a contest or it isnt a contest. And if you’re keeping score, it’s a contest.
There’s also been a good deal written about how a bodybuilder’s goal during a bench press is pectoral stimulation, etc. and about how his pectoral development is superior to people who could do more full reps. To begin with, he’s not a bodybuilder, he’s a bodybuilder in a bench contest. This isn’t semantics, it’s a necessary distinction. Just because you participate in one endeavor almost exclusively, that doesnt mean you get to import that development’s rules to another competition.
Has anyone noticed that this board wasn’t flooded with people wringing their hands over Ronnie not locking out his reps in The Cost of Redemption, or maybe getting a litte too much elbow bend in The Unbelievable? That’s because THAT wasn’t a contest. Just an olympian filming a training video in his gym, no peckerhead with a mic in a cut-sleeve shirt in sight.
Secondly, talking about how his pec development was among the best in the contest is equally ridiculous as saying that jay cutler should get extra points at the O because he can bench more than ronnie (no idea if that’s true just an example.) It’s a different sport.
Oh, and for the record, Phil Heath is strong. I have yet to see anyone on this thread disagree with that statement.
The guys you lift with aren’t here shooting their mouth off about how ill-legit his performance was. You are, however. Got a camera?[/quote]
Reading comprehension - look into it. Randman said that none of us could out-do the 46 partial rep performance and wanted proof. I supplied some corroborating evidence because these guys aren’t going to do some stupid partial rep exercise to tell some nameless fuck (who hasn’t produced video evidence of himself doing jack shit).
Learn to fucking read and stop getting you posing trunks in a wad just because someone points out the truth that the 46 reps were not complete reps. I don’t see what your problem was from the beginning…no one said shit about the 46 reps not being a good performance, just that it wasn’t comparable to full ROM reps. If you can’t understand that, we can’t have a conversation, just like I can’t convince a kid who is determined that the sky is green that it’s blue.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Not locking out doesn’t mean you work LESS hard. Locking out is a rest position. That means doing them like he did actually puts MORE stress on the pectorals.[/quote]
It may or may not cause more overall “stress”…it would depend on the number of extra reps the lifter can get due to performing partial reps and the extra weight that could be used weighed against the loss incurred by not moving the weight the extra couple of inches…since even though over the last range of motion up to lockout more force is distributed to the arms then the chest, there still is some force distributed to the chest. All things being equal(equal reps,equal force), doing them in a partial manner does not put more “stress” on the pecs.
The guys you lift with aren’t here shooting their mouth off about how ill-legit his performance was. You are, however. Got a camera?[/quote]
And then there’s the logic you’re using in this post. WTF does me posting a video of myself (or even of my training partners) doing 46 partial reps prove jack fucking shit about the legitimacy of these lifts. Awhile back, Mike Miller “squatted” 1200 at a powerliting meet, but it was an obviously high squat. Does EVERYONE that points out that the squat was high have to be able to take 1200 to depth to say that? If so, then there would be like 2 judges in the world. Think about what you post. Fuck, I’m pretty sure you could take a stab at 46 partial reps of 225…you’re big as fuck and strong. What does that prove?
Besides, if you go back to what I’ve ALREADY POSTED, you will see the problem with posting a video of “partial reps”. Remember that post where I pointed out that defining what the partial reps were was nearly impossible? Those points still stand unless you care to define and objective way for me or others to replicate these partial reps.
[quote]RickJames wrote:
You could give a shit?
[/quote]
Do I studder?
As far as I know I haven’t claimed anything beyond agreeing that what the guy did in the video was impressive and there are always a lot of Internet critics that want to pounce on people in videos because “form” isn’t perfect.
And I have a feeling your going to educate me. Oh joy.
Here we go, the Tate references, the Westside references, the intolerant attitudes to anything bodybuilding. I’m important and strong because I know someone who knows someone references. Typical attitude I see from “you” guys.
I’m sure some of those people can. I didn’t know you KNEW them?!? Wow, can I get your autograph. My Dad is bigger than you Dad.
Shirted presses? Is that like with a button down shirt or collar shirt? Do you wear a tie with those shirts? I’m already getting “board” of this discussion.
Quote me where I said that. Seriously, quote me where I said that 225X46 in a partial rep fashion is not a world-beating performance. That’s right, you can’t. All I said is what that guy did was impressive and most Internet critics like to jump on these videos because form isn’t perfect.
So I’m not asking for your so-called friends’ video anymore; I’m asking for your video. Can you put up as many reps as this guy did with the same ROM? Nah, didn’t think so…so STFU and tell your criticism to someone who cares.
Good one. I feel bruised.
Let’s take a poll; who’s posts are stupider on this thread; mine or his? Congratulations, Rick James! You win a new toaster oven.
Now go do a triple board, raw bench press, back flip while masterbating and telling everyone how you know Westsiders and even help them with their laundry.
As a matter of fact, I do. I never said I was Mr. Strongman. I can appreciate strength and strength-endurance when I see it. What I don’t do, however, is to reference people that may be able to do the same or better and then say the original effort is shit because of it. You sound like a little child, “Oh yeah, I know someone who’s stronger, nana-nana-nana!!!”
Because I don’t agree with you post dribblings, now I have no strength? Boy, you showed me with your post. Now why don’t you run along like a good Neanderthal and bump chests with you West-side bottom feeders and tell em how you stuck it to me real good since I only do 225 bench press for reps.
Flash forward: I can see RickJames now with his face getting red as his IQ lowers a few points while he decides to PM me and ask where I live so he can really show me who’s stonger. Oh Yeah.
[quote]pja wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Not locking out doesn’t mean you work LESS hard. Locking out is a rest position. That means doing them like he did actually puts MORE stress on the pectorals.
It may or may not cause more overall “stress”…it would depend on the number of extra reps the lifter can get due to performing partial reps and the extra weight that could be used weighed against the loss incurred by not moving the weight the extra couple of inches…since even though over the last range of motion up to lockout more force is distributed to the arms then the chest, there still is some force distributed to the chest. All things being equal(equal reps,equal force), doing them in a partial manner does not put more “stress” on the pecs.[/quote]
You need to learn more about this exercise. If you completely lock out, it is a rest position. The major muscles being worked are now your triceps and stabilization from shoulders and arms, not your pecs if your arms are straight up in the air. The pectoral muscles work at adduction of the humerus. If the humerus is outstretched in front of the body, while they may be flexed, they are not receiving the direct force from the weight lifted.
Oh, and for the record, Phil Heath is strong. I have yet to see anyone on this thread disagree with that statement.
[/quote]
Then it should end there…or else you all need to get a petition signed by several others who give a shit and email it to the next Olympia contest in protest of them calling the act a “benchpress contest”. Otherwise, it just sounds like overly loud bitching for no damn reason.
Oh, and for the record, Phil Heath is strong. I have yet to see anyone on this thread disagree with that statement.
Then it should end there…or else you all need to get a petition signed by several others who give a shit and email it to the next Olympia contest in protest of them calling the act a “benchpress contest”. Otherwise, it just sounds like overly loud bitching for no damn reason.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t need to end there, becasue this has never been about whether he was strong, nor about whether he was swole, or whatever. Somebody pointed out that it’s a joke to call those “reps” and then you and several others got all in a huff.
You need to learn more about this exercise. If you completely lock out, it is a rest position. The major muscles being worked are now your triceps and stabilization from shoulders and arms, not your pecs if your arms are straight up in the air. The pectoral muscles work at adduction of the humerus. If the humerus is outstretched in front of the body, while they may be flexed, they are not receiving the direct force from the weight lifted.[/quote]
Did you even read what I said?? If we assume the the path from point A to point B is the same for a partial rep where you only go from A to B, as it is for a full rep where you go from A to B plus something else…how can the total stress induced be more for the partial rep… See what I am saying?
There is no way it can be more…it might be the same(only if absolutely all the load is distributed through the arms)…or it might be less…but it can’t be more. Once again assuming everything else is the same, weight, number of reps,same path from A to B, total time from A to B,etc.
You need to learn more about this exercise. If you completely lock out, it is a rest position. The major muscles being worked are now your triceps and stabilization from shoulders and arms, not your pecs if your arms are straight up in the air. The pectoral muscles work at adduction of the humerus. If the humerus is outstretched in front of the body, while they may be flexed, they are not receiving the direct force from the weight lifted.
Did you even read what I said?? If we assume the the path from point A to point B is the same for a partial rep where you only go from A to B, as it is for a full rep where you go from A to B plus something else…how can the total stress induced be more for the partial rep… See what I am saying?
There is no way it can be more…it might be the same(only if absolutely all the load is distributed through the arms)…or it might be less…but it can’t be more. Once again assuming everything else is the same, weight, number of reps,same path from A to B, total time from A to B,etc. [/quote]
You seem to be a little slow on this one. Simple concept. Try squatting but not coming all of the way up. Do that for ten reps only coming just high enough to break parallel before you return back down and tell me if the stress is the same as doing squats where you come all of the way up after each rep. This is getting old. This concept is not difficult to understand. What is amazing to me…is that you think I am the one behind.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Try squatting but not coming all of the way up. Do that for ten reps only coming just high enough to break parallel before you return back down and tell me if the stress is the same as doing squats where you come all of the way up after each rep. This is getting old. This concept is not difficult to understand. What is amazing to me…is that you think I am the one behind.[/quote]
When I do higher rep squats and I’m getting tired, I like to rest in the middle of the rep because its soooo much easier than going all the way up. [/sarcasm]