[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
dankid, you’re a retart. You state specifically that you’ve only seen him bench once. And what if he doesn’t do heavy squats and deadlifts? Does that mean he didn’t do them previously to get to the size he is now?[/quote]
Calling some one a retart…
wtf is that?
[quote]alexdoesweights wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
dankid, you’re a retart. You state specifically that you’ve only seen him bench once. And what if he doesn’t do heavy squats and deadlifts? Does that mean he didn’t do them previously to get to the size he is now?
Calling some one a retart…
wtf is that?[/quote]
i think he is trying to quote Alan from the Hangover when Alan said that Rainman was a retard. he might have just misspelled it.
[quote]Devilhunter187 wrote:
alexdoesweights wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
dankid, you’re a retart. You state specifically that you’ve only seen him bench once. And what if he doesn’t do heavy squats and deadlifts? Does that mean he didn’t do them previously to get to the size he is now?
Calling some one a retart…
wtf is that?
i think he is trying to quote Alan from the Hangover when Alan said that Rainman was a retard. he might have just misspelled it.[/quote]
FTR, I purposefully misspell and use nonwords when I feel like talking down to someone. It makes me feel like I’m leveler with them.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Muscular strength is defined as a muscle’s ability to generate force. Gymnasts are very good at supporting and manipulating their own bodyweight. But they are usually very light (5’7" 170 lbs would be huge for a high level gymnast), which makes it a lot easier. Yes, they’re good at doing what they do, but that doesn’t make them “stronger” than someone like Coleman.
There’s no two ways about it, Coleman is the stronger man, by FAR. Van Gelder is by far the better gymnast though, and might actually be stronger in relation to his weight; which isn’t the same thing as being stronger in an absolute sense, which is what people have been saying all along.[/quote]
Two things:
#1. Most of what gymnasts do is manipulate and to move quickly to perform a specific task, correct, but some of the movements with rings has nothing to with generating momentum. They are completely stretched out completely still and then move themselves from there. Throught the complete range of motion they are strong.
#2. I can see where my post would suggest that Coleman was actually weaker then a gymnast but that wasn’t what I meant. All I was trying to point out was considering the size of each indivual look at what they can accomplish. Say take a 5,10 170 lbs gymnast vs. your regular gym goer (say stacked too) at 6,0 195 lbs, even amount of BF % for arguments sake. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the gymnast could deadlift more. Maybe I wrong? Maybe you don’t agree? But there overall strength, neural efficiency, and motor unit recuritment is amazing for their size.
If there argument was never who is stronger in relation to size, which I would think would lend itself to the title ‘strength=size?’, as you say then maybe I missed to point of the thread entirely which is my bad.
[quote]Crusher Jr. wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Muscular strength is defined as a muscle’s ability to generate force. Gymnasts are very good at supporting and manipulating their own bodyweight. But they are usually very light (5’7" 170 lbs would be huge for a high level gymnast), which makes it a lot easier. Yes, they’re good at doing what they do, but that doesn’t make them “stronger” than someone like Coleman.
There’s no two ways about it, Coleman is the stronger man, by FAR. Van Gelder is by far the better gymnast though, and might actually be stronger in relation to his weight; which isn’t the same thing as being stronger in an absolute sense, which is what people have been saying all along.
Two things:
#1. Most of what gymnasts do is manipulate and to move quickly to perform a specific task, correct, but some of the movements with rings has nothing to with generating momentum. They are completely stretched out completely still and then move themselves from there. Throught the complete range of motion they are strong.
[/quote]
I never said otherwise, and yes they are very strong relative to their bodyweight at the specific skills they practice. But in an absolute sense, due to their small stature (which allows them to reach the level of skill that they achieve in gymnastics) they are not all that strong.
6’0" 195 is not stacked (unless they were like 5% bf) and a 5’10" gymnast wouldn’t be able to do very impressive gymnastics skills, that’s too tall. I understand what you’re trying to do with your argument, but it’s such an incredible straw man that it really isn’t worth arguing over.
What level of a gymnast is your supposed gymnast? How strong is the supposed regular gym goer? What kind of levers have they got? Does the gym goer specifically train the deadlift? Etc…etc…etc… Again, too many factors involved.
The question was, is there a relationship between size and strength. In other words, will a bigger person (someone with more muscle mass) be stronger than a smaller person. The answer is that there isn’t an exact linear relationship between the two, but gaining a large amount of muscle will make a person stronger than they were when they started. It’s also pretty safe to say that as a general rule, the larger the person, the stronger they will be in an absolute sense.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Muscular strength is defined as a muscle’s ability to generate force. Gymnasts are very good at supporting and manipulating their own bodyweight. But they are usually very light (5’7" 170 lbs would be huge for a high level gymnast), which makes it a lot easier. Yes, they’re good at doing what they do, but that doesn’t make them “stronger” than someone like Coleman.
There’s no two ways about it, Coleman is the stronger man, by FAR. Van Gelder is by far the better gymnast though, and might actually be stronger in relation to his weight; which isn’t the same thing as being stronger in an absolute sense, which is what people have been saying all along.
Two things:
#1. Most of what gymnasts do is manipulate and to move quickly to perform a specific task, correct, but some of the movements with rings has nothing to with generating momentum. They are completely stretched out completely still and then move themselves from there. Throught the complete range of motion they are strong.
I never said otherwise, and yes they are very strong relative to their bodyweight at the specific skills they practice. But in an absolute sense, due to their small stature (which allows them to reach the level of skill that they achieve in gymnastics) they are not all that strong.
#2. I can see where my post would suggest that Coleman was actually weaker then a gymnast but that wasn’t what I meant. All I was trying to point out was considering the size of each indivual look at what they can accomplish. Say take a 5,10 170 lbs gymnast vs. your regular gym goer (say stacked too) at 6,0 195 lbs, even amount of BF % for arguments sake. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the gymnast could deadlift more. Maybe I wrong? Maybe you don’t agree? But there overall strength, neural efficiency, and motor unit recuritment is amazing for their size.
6’0" 195 is not stacked (unless they were like 5% bf) and a 5’10" gymnast wouldn’t be able to do very impressive gymnastics skills, that’s too tall. I understand what you’re trying to do with your argument, but it’s such an incredible straw man that it really isn’t worth arguing over.
What level of a gymnast is your supposed gymnast? How strong is the supposed regular gym goer? What kind of levers have they got? Does the gym goer specifically train the deadlift? Etc…etc…etc… Again, too many factors involved.
If there argument was never who is stronger in relation to size, which I would think would lend itself to the title ‘strength=size?’, as you say then maybe I missed to point of the thread entirely which is my bad.
The question was, is there a relationship between size and strength. In other words, will a bigger person (someone with more muscle mass) be stronger than a smaller person. The answer is that there isn’t an exact linear relationship between the two, but gaining a large amount of muscle will make a person stronger than they were when they started. It’s also pretty safe to say that as a general rule, the larger the person, the stronger they will be in an absolute sense.[/quote]
I can see how my argument isn’t fool proof and I do agree with many of your points. The basis of my argument, however, was that certain ways of training can provide different outcomes (hypertrophy, strength, stamina, athletic ability) all with altering a few variables (exercise selection, cadence, load %, rest, frequency, volume, etc.) None of which are exclusive from each other but rather with one be the main focus of training. That’s where I brought in the gymnast. I could of used a plethora of different examples but they seem to make the strongest case.
On top of that, I don’t subscribe to the notion of ‘certain lift numbers’ determining a persons success in the strength world. There is only so much each individual can achieve in and outside the gym that relates to their genetic code. Just because someone isn’t over 200lbs doesnt mean they’re weak little puppies. I’ve seen a lot of articles and egos around T-Nation that would suggest otherwise. I just don’t buy it. That’s more in relation to a point you made and not the thread itself.
Your overall conclusion though I would have to agree with.