[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Who the fuck cares? A lot of people can bench more than I can. I can do more cock pushups, though.
Because you handle so many cocks?[/quote]
It’s from Tenacious D. Jack black said it on their CD as a joke.
Grow up
[quote]malonetd wrote:
malonetd wrote:
How about this: the bench press is only an event in a powerlifting meet and that’s all. If you haven’t competed and pressed a weight in a competition, your claimed lift is bogus. If you have never competed, your bench press is ZERO as far as I’m concerned.
For those that missed it, the above statement was made sarcastically. I was taking the original poster’s idea of pushing powerlifting rules and standards into people’s gym lifts one step further. I would think by reading my other posts people would have gotten this. But alas…[/quote]
Oooooh…Sorry. Never noticed your other posts before. My apologies for going on a misdirected rant. The fact is though that such comments have been made in seriousness by others. But thanks for clearing that up - I think a number of us were confused.
[quote]nptitim wrote:
…To me comparing myself is not about insecurity, it is about forming an accurate assesment of yourself. The beauty (and the brutality) of weights is that they let you know right where you stand…
[/quote]
To me, any comparison with anybody, but myself over time, is meaningless. I understand your point about defining lifts and you’re welcome to it. It’s not even necessarily a stupid point in and of itself if that’s the way you choose to view it.
What I’m not getting is why you find it so difficult to countenance the notion that not everybody shares it with you. You started this whole thread in the hope of recruiting an army of supporters who would join you and say “YEAH, IF THE BAR DIDN"T TOUCH YOUR CHEST IT ISN"T A BENCHRESS”. What difference does it make?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What I’m not getting is why you find it so difficult to countenance the notion that not everybody shares it with you. You started this whole thread in the hope of recruiting an army of supporters who would join you and say “YEAH, IF THE BAR DIDN"T TOUCH YOUR CHEST IT ISN"T A BENCHRESS”. What difference does it make?[/quote]
The definition of culture is a shared sense of values. I see gym goers, namely people on this site, as a mini-culture. In addition all different jobs and sports and hobbies have their jargon, ours relates to weights. We have to have set definitions of terms in order to talk to each other. We know what a set is, what a rep is, etc. I feel that getting everybody on the same page and knowing the terms is a useful goal. If everyone out there had a set base of knowledge and called all of the exercises the same thing, by one given name, it would avoid a lot of the confusion that is out there.
It is fine to have dissenting views of philosophies and such, but people should be in agreement on basic terms. People on this site should all be in agreement with what does and does not constitute a squat, a bench, and deadlift, and any number of other exercises. What should also know what the bones are called, what the muscles are, etc.
So why did I start this thread? I assumed that the definition of a bench was a given. In discussing this was others, it became clear that it wasn’t as much of a given as I thought. So I started this thread for 2 reasons. One, to find out where everybody else stood, and 2 if people stood where I thought they did to help make my point. On the internet it is often just one person arguing with another person, but you are right, if 20-30 people all agree with one person that other person then has to re-evaluate their position. It doesn’t for sure mean they are wrong, but they should consider the possibility.
So what happened? Some people thought you needed to touch your chest and most people thought it was a dumb question or got distracted about talking about benching at a party. Clearly I could written a better first post that might have avoided those issues. It was interesting to note that while some people thought it was a stupid issue, no one claimed that stopping short should count on this thread.
[quote]nptitim wrote:
The definition of culture is a shared sense of values…
…It was interesting to note that while some people thought it was a stupid issue, no one claimed that stopping short should count on this thread.[/quote]
Dude, don’t take this the wrong way, but if this your major trauma for the week you have no problems.
A bench press is when you lay on a bench with a weighted barbell in your hands and move it up and down with the hopeful design of causing the muscles that that exercise recruits to become bigger, stronger or both.
If the significance of there being any more universal agreement on this weighty question than that is allowed to be much more than a passing fancy to you you’ll soon be curled in the fetal position in a corner sucking your thumb mumbling something about the downfall of society.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Dude, don’t take this the wrong way, but if this your major trauma for the week you have no problems.[/quote]
I take having no problems as a compliment.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
A bench press is when you lay on a bench with a weighted barbell in your hands and move it up and down with the hopeful design of causing the muscles that that exercise recruits to become bigger, stronger or both.
If the significance of there being any more universal agreement on this weighty question than that is allowed to be much more than a passing fancy to you you’ll soon be curled in the fetal position in a corner sucking your thumb mumbling something about the downfall of society.
[/quote]
So you don’t see any significance in distinguishing between the many variations of the bench press like closegrip, illegal wide grip, 1/4 reps, half reps, floor press, pause reps, reverse grip, etc?
Is a squat simply putting the bar on your back and bending your knees, hoping that your legs will grow bigger or stronger?
Is a deadlift holding a bar in your hands and moving upward, hoping your posterior chain will grow bigger or stronger?
If you see no difference in specifying what exercise you actually did, that is fine with me. I choose to distinguish exercises as much as a I can. I feel this helps me record my workouts as accurately as possible so then I can (hopefully) figure out what exercises are working and what are not.
But to your credit I can bench about 100 more pounds using your definition than mine, maybe I should switch to yours 
I don’t know how much more thoroughly you could’ve missed my point than what you did.
Of course there are many more precise definitions of every exercise there is than their most basic components.
That <<>> the point. What I was saying was, if you are going to stress like this over there not being any more precise a definition than an exercise’s most basic components <<>> then life is not going to be too kind to you.
You don’t sound like an idiot. Pick a definition you like, persuade the guys you workout with to agree and have a pleasant lifting career. If you think you are going to singlehandedly get a website with hundreds of regular users to all agree on damn near anything you have a severely overinflated view of your own importance and influence.
Slightly off topic, but a comment/question/rant about bench presses:
When bench is inevitably brought up in an exercise discussion, why do some people say “I benched XXX weight for reps”? How many reps? 2? 10? (75.453 x pi) to the 5th power? I have no clue how to react when the “for reps” card is played. Is that supposed to mean my mind should wander about how much they can REALLY lift if they tried a 1rm? If so, it doesn’t work because I just think they’re a tard.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Slightly off topic, but a comment/question/rant about bench presses:
When bench is inevitably brought up in an exercise discussion, why do some people say “I benched XXX weight for reps”? How many reps? 2? 10? (75.453 x pi) to the 5th power? I have no clue how to react when the “for reps” card is played. Is that supposed to mean my mind should wander about how much they can REALLY lift if they tried a 1rm? If so, it doesn’t work because I just think they’re a tard.[/quote]
Uusally they’re referring to a working set, meaning NOT a one rep max. The number of reps isn’t as significant as the fact that it’s more than one. At least that’s been my experience.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That <<>> the point. What I was saying was, if you are going to stress like this over there not being any more precise a definition than an exercise’s most basic components <<>> then life is not going to be too kind to you.
[/quote]
I guess I did miss your point and I am sorry to say I am still not quite sure of it. Perhaps I am a little slow. Are you saying that you agree that there is pretty much a universally accepted definition of a bench, I just shouldn’t try to get everyone else on here to agree to it, or are you saying something else?
Doug - some people don’t max out so they don’t know their max so they use their rep max bench, other’s max bench is not what they want but they are better at endurance so they use their rep max because it is to their advantage. Often when people very rarely workout with low reps, when they try it the first time their max is lower than they want so they give a rep max because they like it better. Others truly just don’t know what it is.
I have powerlifted, but probably won’t again in a meet due to some shoulder issues after a car accident last year.
I don’t even bench anymore to my chest. I use two boards to help protect he shoulder. So I don’t know my raw max. I did do 360 from 2 boards this year, but i wouldn’t call that my max.
For my purpose, I would tell someone the most I did from my chest, whether it be shirt or raw. I usually qualify the shirt amounts to try to keep the talk on a fair level.
I only talk about lifting with people that want to talk about lifting. They ask, I talk. Usually the conversation includes much more than a max. It might be about injuries, training, and so on.
[quote]nptitim wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
That <<>> the point. What I was saying was, if you are going to stress like this over there not being any more precise a definition than an exercise’s most basic components <<>> then life is not going to be too kind to you.
I guess I did miss your point and I am sorry to say I am still not quite sure of it. Perhaps I am a little slow. Are you saying that you agree that there is pretty much a universally accepted definition of a bench, I just shouldn’t try to get everyone else on here to agree to it, or are you saying something else?[/quote]
To sum up, I was just taking a somewhat sardonic approach to agreeing with those who have said that outside of competition the precise definition is irrelevant.
Only the broadest description of what any movement consists of is going to be agreed upon by everybody and you’re putting alot of energy into a fruitless attempt at doing what is both impossible and unnecessary.
That doesn’t make you a bad guy or an idiot, but it is a bit tedious. No big deal.
[quote]bigkaggie2008 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Who the fuck cares? A lot of people can bench more than I can. I can do more cock pushups, though.
Because you handle so many cocks?
It’s from Tenacious D. Jack black said it on their CD as a joke.
Grow up[/quote]
Don’t worry about it, he knows it is a joke.
[quote]nptitim wrote:
But to your credit I can bench about 100 more pounds using your definition than mine, maybe I should switch to yours :)[/quote]
So you are saying that you can add 100 lbs to your bench by stopping 1/8 of an inch above touching you chest?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
bigkaggie2008 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Who the fuck cares? A lot of people can bench more than I can. I can do more cock pushups, though.
Because you handle so many cocks?
It’s from Tenacious D. Jack black said it on their CD as a joke.
Grow up
Don’t worry about it, he knows it is a joke.[/quote]
Ha, yeah. I thought it was funny that I said I could do more cock push ups than someone instead of benching more, and he tells you to grow up.