[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Difference in lean body mass between Tyson and Roy Jones Jr. was like 10-15 lbs.?! Thats ridicoulous! :)))
Have you seen these men box when in their prime?
[/quote]
Of course, I’m a huge boxing fan. Seriously though 15lbs of muscle tissue makes a huge visual difference especially since these guys minimize leg size gains.
Also consider that Tyson has a wider clavicle and stockier build, which makes him look larger. [/quote]
Mike
[/quote]
Hopefully now you see why we’re all saying 80 pounds is ridiculous.
It’s the same mighty stu… if you click on his hub in that thread from 2002, you will be linked straight to his current account with his current avatar picture.
[quote]flch95 wrote:
Why are they limiting gains in the legs? Speed/mobility? If so, I thought bigger legs didn’t necessarily mean slower?[/quote]
I did not say gains in strength, I said gains in size. It doesn’t have anything to go with mobility but rather simply to body weight. If a boxer can have legs that are 10lbs lighter while still being strong and explosive it means that he can go in a lower weight class with the upper body size and strength of the higher weight class… or add 10lbs more in his upper body without having to go up a weight class.
One last thing regarding Tyson vs. Jones… our own perception affects how we view reality. Tyson was a bruiser, a power punching machine. Jones was a skilled boxer… thais and automatically makes us perceive Tyson as being much larger than he really is and makes us see Jones as more sleek then he is.
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Difference in lean body mass between Tyson and Roy Jones Jr. was like 10-15 lbs.?! Thats ridicoulous! :)))
Have you seen these men box when in their prime?
[/quote]
Of course, I’m a huge boxing fan. Seriously though 15lbs of muscle tissue makes a huge visual difference especially since these guys minimize leg size gains.
Also consider that Tyson has a wider clavicle and stockier build, which makes him look larger. [/quote]
Mike
[/quote]
You show a pic of a 176lbs dehydrated Roy Jones… at 193 he doesn’t look the same at all. Fighters look tiny at the weight-in when they need to cut a lot of weight.
And as I said… YES Tyson has more lean body mass. But nowhere near 50lbs… I have trained enough people to have an idea of the visual changes thatt 15lbs of lean body mass added to a lean upper body does.
The numbers are correct… at his peak weight Roy Jones was 193lbs. He would cut down to 176lbs for the light-heavy fights… and yes it is easy to find pics of him very small since he start out in the lighter weight classes. But at his peak, in a non-dehydrated state he was 193 and Tyson at his peak was 215-220 and slightly less lean.
But I’ll play devils advocate… Jones was a tad taller which accounts for some of the weight. Still there is no way that a peak shape Tyson had more than 25lbs of lean mass over a peak shape non-dehydrated Roy Jones.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
And as I said… YES Tyson has more lean body mass. But nowhere near 50lbs… I have trained enough people to have an idea of the visual changes thatt 15lbs of lean body mass added to a lean upper body does.
The numbers are correct… at his peak weight Roy Jones was 193lbs. He would cut down to 176lbs for the light-heavy fights… and yes it is easy to find pics of him very small since he start out in the lighter weight classes. But at his peak, in a non-dehydrated state he was 193 and Tyson at his peak was 215-220 and slightly less lean.
But I’ll play devils advocate… Jones was a tad taller which accounts for some of the weight. Still there is no way that a peak shape Tyson had more than 25lbs of lean mass over a peak shape non-dehydrated Roy Jones.[/quote]
[quote]gregron wrote:
Those old time strong men were performers, most of the time working for the circus.
The bearded lady was legit?
The 1,000 lb man was really 1,000lbs?
Those 500lb circus dumbbells were really 500lbs?
It was all a show. Stats were used to bring in customers who had never seen such incredible things. Yeah these guys were built, especially for back then, but to think that these guys 100 years ago are FAR AND AWAY surpassing what virtually any natural bodybuilder has done over the past 40 years or so is incredibly naive.[/quote]
I used old time wrestlers because they built their bodies in the pre-steroid era.[/quote]
uhhh 1956 was not pre-steroid. [/quote]
Learn something about steroid history before you throw some random year that has nothing to do with this discussion.[/quote]
um nothing to do with the discussion? you posted a pic of a strongman who was “around” up untill the 1956. you used him as an example of the pre-steroid era, when infact steroids were around at that time.
Stu? But I thought we were talking about LIFETIME naturals?
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
you cant look at guys like stu, cordova, layne norton and alberto nunez and tell me they dont have great genetics for bodybuilding.[/quote]
[/quote]
Wow creeper post from the grave.
Is that you Tribunal?[/quote]
This thread just GOT AWESOME. Wait why did Tribunal edit his post?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Anyone else notice a big change in fat distribution when dropping a bunch of weight?
My chest used to have about as thick a layer of fat as my gut, but my chest leaned out far faster.
Same with my upper arm. My forearm leaned out fast, but I’m just really starting to see better separation in my upper arm. My bicep separation from my shoulder and elbow is really starting to come out.
[/quote]
Yes. I’ve lost some total bodyfat and despite this it seems as if I’m fatter in the midsection than I was before I lost it! It’s strange. I remember Dave Tate said he experienced the exact same thing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Anyone else notice a big change in fat distribution when dropping a bunch of weight?
My chest used to have about as thick a layer of fat as my gut, but my chest leaned out far faster.
Same with my upper arm. My forearm leaned out fast, but I’m just really starting to see better separation in my upper arm. My bicep separation from my shoulder and elbow is really starting to come out.
[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Anyone else notice a big change in fat distribution when dropping a bunch of weight?
My chest used to have about as thick a layer of fat as my gut, but my chest leaned out far faster.
Same with my upper arm. My forearm leaned out fast, but I’m just really starting to see better separation in my upper arm. My bicep separation from my shoulder and elbow is really starting to come out.
[/quote]
Great guns by the way![/quote]
You can def put on 80lb of. Uncle with correct diet and training with the main lifts. I’ve seem it done as a natural
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Anyone else notice a big change in fat distribution when dropping a bunch of weight?
My chest used to have about as thick a layer of fat as my gut, but my chest leaned out far faster.
Same with my upper arm. My forearm leaned out fast, but I’m just really starting to see better separation in my upper arm. My bicep separation from my shoulder and elbow is really starting to come out.
[/quote]
Great guns by the way![/quote]
You can def put on 80lb of. Uncle with correct diet and training with the main lifts. I’ve seem it done as a natural
[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Anyone else notice a big change in fat distribution when dropping a bunch of weight?
My chest used to have about as thick a layer of fat as my gut, but my chest leaned out far faster.
Same with my upper arm. My forearm leaned out fast, but I’m just really starting to see better separation in my upper arm. My bicep separation from my shoulder and elbow is really starting to come out.
[/quote]
Great guns by the way![/quote]
You can def put on 80lb of. Uncle with correct diet and training with the main lifts. I’ve seem it done as a natural
[/quote]
