Actually, this is exactly my point. When you train genetically gifted people from an early age, you’re going to have world class athletes. And this is EXACTLY how Olympic weightlifting champions are made: choosing genetically gifted kids at a young age. This is why I believe OL has better athletes capable of achieving more.
Your logic is flawed.
Two examples.
My son has been wrestling since he was 5. He is a damn good wrestler right now and believe it or not by 2nd grade we had already been approached by a local HS with a top 3 wrestling program to participate in their youth program (sports where we live are administered at the HS level) for grooming. This sounds great but the reality of things is I know several All American wrestlers and D1 champs in both Greco and Folkstyle that never really started wrestling until middle school, and in one case Froshman year of HS. There is a very real possibility he will spend all this time training to get beat by somebody who has been training for 2-3 years when he hits HS level.
This is a hard thing to articulate but I will try. I train powerlifters and know a lot of guys in the coutry that so as well. Some states have very prominent PL programs and the coaches literally work with maybe 100 lifters a year. Relative to them I am small potatoes. The reality of things is it can take YEEEAARS until you finally get a lifter that sets the world on fire and even then it may not end up being the one you thought it would be.
What I am trying to say is that your view is profoundly overly simplistic and to try to assert that these an coach can spot an athlete and make an accurate assessment of all the qualities it will take to compete on an elite level is asinine. I can promise you they strike out much, much more than the tear the cover off the ball.
The good news is it only takes 1 or 2 to make a career.
[/quote]
You are trying to refute my point with the mindset that I’m somehow arguing which sport develops stronger athlete.
As for your son’s example, I don’t see how it pertains to the debate at hand. Wrestling is a sport where strength takes a distant backseat to conditioning and technique. This is not the case with PL and WL, where first and foremost, strength and genetic are king, and technique is secondary and later developed. In short, genetic is of less importance in wrestling.
One look at someone like John Smith and you can clearly see this, as he did not possess an intimidating physique at all. Perhaps the kids who beat your son worked harder, learned faster, and applied their technique better?
I don’t think my view is simplistic at all. My view holds true for many, many sports across the world. If a sport is popular, it will generate interest, and with interest comes money, and with money comes attraction. Is it a surprise that the biggest sport in South America is soccer and that the large majority of the greatest soccer players of all time has come from Brazil? Is Judo not the most popular sport in Japan, and that the Japanese dominate Judo?
Is it not true that the biggest sport in India is cricket, and that the best cricket athletes are mostly Indian? Is it not true that Rugby is popular in Australia, New Zealand, England and that the best Rugby players are generally from those area? How is this view simplistic when it’s proven time and time again to be correct?
As for your point about coaches missing more than they hit, I think you are just wrong. Bulgaria is responsible for some of the greatest Weightlifters of all time, and if you ask anyone in Bulgaria, they will largely attribute this to one man: Ivan Abajiev. The man had to have an ability to spot a winner when he saw one, no? Considering he’s responsible for countless world champions. What about the programs in China?
They must be doing something right, considering they’re utterly domination the competition at lower weight class.
So, yes, I would like to think that these coaches DO possess the ability to choose a winner when they see one. The results of someone like Ivan and the Chinese weightlifting program is much more credible then your example, using your own child and gym buddies.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It’s like when I worked at the Ironman races. Everyone had a big boner that they were the fittest athletes on the planet. One of my faggy triathlete buddies made fun of me because I was out of shape. In relation to doing something for 11-18 hours.
I asked him in the animal kingdom where he ever saw lions and wildebeest ever jog for 12 hours. i told him if I could catch him in 100 yards he was food. that’s the way it works.
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
Have you ever done something like the ironman? If no, then do or train for one. If yes, then you know how tough it is.
While it’s great if you’re a lion in the jungle in your pretend world, in the real world you arent.
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked. So forget sprinting in the real world, it doesnt exist for us.
Regardless of biomechanics, doing an event for 16.5 hours is impressive shit. Something alot of people can’t do.
As for fittest, they sure are.
Sure, deadlifting 500 pounds, benching 500 and squatting 550 is all super awesome (seriously, i do think it is, not sarcasm), but to be able to push your body to it’s breaking points for up to 17 hours is some bad ass shit.
AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE 100 MILE WESTERN!!
edit:
I don’t see the point in lifting big and being strong without good cardio. I’ve seen big guys get winded running up a flight of stairs. Pathetic.
I understand the attractive concept in being strong, but to downplay an event such as the ironman…that’s just showing to the world what little you know about athletism.
As I said, I worked on the medical staff for 4 world championships and two Lake Placid Ironman races. I’ve seen tons of overuse injuries and a lot of people in poor shape strength wise and immune system wise get these things done. And many of these competitors had poorer cardio than me. Doing a slow bike ride for 7 hours doesn’t make you in better shape than me, if you can’t keep up with me for 30 minutes.
Endurance isn’t great cardio necessarily. Now if you’re competing an Ironman in just over 8 hours to maybe 12.5, I salute you. but barely finishing and enduring is no big deal. It’s like someone bragging about their 305 squat, 185 bench, and 315 deadlift in the 242 class. you’re okay strong for a regular guy, but you still suck.
Last I checked, there was one Ironman race run where the winner did it in under 8 hours. They had great conditions that day that helped the time. Most men winners finished in the 8:15-8:30 range as I recall. This is trememndous.
But if a hallmark of great fitness is sucking at something for 17 hours, I don’t buy it. I could have smoked so many of those folk in a 45 minute spinerval workout.
Fitness is always relative, but these people are not overall fit as they think. how is a 42 resting pulse rate unfit? Doesn’t it make sense to achieve that with 45 minutes 3x a week as opposed to hours and hours? And still have a functioning immune system , no overuse injuries, and a high levle of strength.
Believe me, I’m not talking about ignoring cardio, but he problem with cardio people is that they don’t realize you don’t need to go forever to achieve a high level of fitness. You see, they want to run or ride forever. I just wanted to be in the best shape. But they kid themselves that they are the fittest.
Ah, alright. I understood you meant the top athletes (that they arent fit either and you were bashing the IM in general).
I went to the hospital to see a doctor a few days ago and i heard one of the doctors there got third place in the womens at Kona. Sadly i didnt get to meet her.
While i do understand where you are coming from, you can’t deny that doing the ironman, period, still makes you fit. I’m sure when you’ve seen the top athletes as many times as you must have, that some fat guy and his wife doing it in 16 hours must not seem like a big deal. However i think it still is (they are still traveling the full 140 miles arent they?).
Where do you draw the line? Meaning , under what hour mark do you consider it to mean you are fit?
I would say 12 hours and sub is a good indication. Tell me so i can have a goal to strive forward to when i do the ironman (please dont say 9 hours )
Anyone who does an Ironman has a good level of fitness , of course. But the whole fittest people on earth stuff, please.
How would you classify a district high school wrestling tournament? those lads are pretty fit, pound for pound strong, have agility and so on.
As for how do you know you’re good at an Ironman, 12 hours would be a great mark, with 13 for a gal. Adjust it up and hour or so for the masters crowd. I would say 40+, but you willsee many great athletes at 40-50.
Now, the Ironman stuff is rife with overuse injuries, immune system problems and so on. It’s a worthy goal, but to me a silly goal. I call it silly because I can get more than enough aerobic fitness with much less effort. but the goal of completion is great if you want to achieve that. Kind of like climbing a mountain I wouls say.
Now as for how great the goal of completing one is in athletic accomplishments, I don’t think it’s as hard to achieve as a 300 pound bench press raw, or a 600 pound deadlift. These are specific achievements based on a level of performance. Completing an Ironman to me is a little tougher than completing a lifting meet, but completing a meet doesn’t mean you lifted well.
My point was, and I think you got it, so many regular folk can do it, it’s not that special or hard. Doing it in 12-13 hours is like doing a double bodyweight squat raw I would guess. This is based on what I’ve seen over the years lifting and being at the races, btw. Completing a race in 9:15 and less is like being at the worlds for man and add an hour for a woman.
Think of powerlifting classification or a golf handicap. Your performance should be a part of how great the achievement is, no matter what it is. Believe me, it took me a lot more work to get to the 300+ raw and 600 pound deadlift range than the just complete the Ironman crowd ever did. [/quote]
Fittest in the world definitely not. There are so many ways to define fit. In any case i meant it’s still pretty impressive. I guess ill strive for 11 hours. Seems like a fair goal
I will not continue the cheetah discussion since it is off track but the short answer is yes, you can catch up to a cheetah. Do your research before hand on before saying “you’re dumb”.
[quote]TNV wrote:
KBCThird wrote: So what are you saying here, that the elders got together, consulted and said “we’ve got a kid who has excellent genetics for lifting weights, should we make him an OLer, PLer or strongman?” Of course not, Reza was chosen early for OL because he would be good AT OLYMPIC LIFTING, which is what any big strong Iranian kid - who may or may not have been much good at many other sports - would be pushed towards. Is reza really so athletically blessed that he could’ve been a basketball player, rugby player, whatever? We’ll never know of course, but doubtful
Ok, sorry for late reply. It’s funny that you’re being sarcastic, because it is exactly the case. That IS how they choose kids to be WL in those countries. Among other things, they test the kid’s vertical jumping ability. This will be the last time I address this, because you’re bent on not believing it. Here’s proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwK-dE9HytI The commentator brings it up around the 1:05 mark.
I could not care less if you believe this process occurs or not. The fact remains. And once again, it’s as if you’re not even reading what I wrote. I made it very clear on several occasion now that what I’m comparing is strength sports in general, such as WL, PL and strongman. Not once did I mention anything about other sports such as basketball. But, again, you seem hell bent on making irrelevant points. [/quote]
No worries on the late reply. I’m not being sarcastic, but I think I didnt make myself clear. I know that young, young kids are selected early on for athletic development programs. What I mean is that once reza was recognized there was never a discussion of possibly having him powerlift or do strongman, because while Iran does have competitors in those sports they arent olympic sports, which leads me to guess (i emphasize guess) that they are not state funded. In other words, once it was determined “this kid is naturally strong” it was decided he would compete in OL. I do not for one minute doubt the existence of the early selection process. If that was not clear I’ll take teh blame for that. Hopefully this was a better way of stating it.
[quote]
KBCThird wrote:You’re completely reversing you’re point. Now you’re saying that tehy arent the strongest because they’re genetically gifted, nor because it is specifically OL that they pursued, but rather because they’ve trained every day since they were 10. At least I hope you’re saying that, because if you cant see that, well…
No, I am saying they are the strongest because they are genetically gifted. I don’t get how you did not understand that point. Genetics + hard work + TIME = the best result. As stated earlier, with ALL things being equal (equally good genetic, equally hardworking), the person who’s been training longer will most likely be stronger. Olympic athletes start when they’re little kids. Powerlifters do not start that young, and Louie Simmons has gone on record to say that PL really only excel much later on in life.
KBCThird wrote:Well, I tried to stay civil, but if my points are just semantics, whatever. look, i truly believe that big strong MFers, like reza, like bolton, savickas or thompson would’ve been good no matter what iron sport they chose … but I remain uncertain that they would’ve been AS GOOD had they chosed a different sport. If you dont see the difference between being able to explosively pull a heavy weight off the floor and the ability to pull an even heavier weight off teh floor over the course of 4, 5, 6 seconds, I’m not going to explain it to you.
And once again, you’re arguing something I care not for. I did not say they had the best genetics for ALL sports; I specifically said they had the best genetics for STRENGTH SPORTS. So, please, stop bringing up basketball and other sports – it’s not what I’m arguing. And once again, you prove my point. Just the fact that you agreed that Reza, Bolton and Savickas could have succeeded at any strength sport they chose proves my point, because they are genetically gifted. THAT’S NOT MY POINT. [/quote]
WHAT?! where, in that previous paragraph, did I mention basketball. When I say “different sport” I’m not including soccer, rugby, whatever. What I’m saying is that Reza is (right now) teh strongest OL in the game. I’m not going to get into lb for lb, but in terms of raw weight lifted he is #1. If he had chosen to go into powerlifting I do not believe he’d be the #1 PLer. He’d be ridiculously good, but not #1. Similarly, most people would put either Savickas, Bolton or Siders at #1 in terms of the strongest PLer; had any one of them chosen OL or strongman, or highland games, I do not believe theyd be #1. In strongman most would say savickas is #1 (some might say pudzianowski, so include him if you wish) again, he’d be a very good OLer but not #1. A very good PLer but not #1.
In all the above examples they would have had success BUT NOT THE OVERWHELMING, ULTIMATE (and in reza’s case, the practically undisputed) SUCCESS THEY FOUND IN THEIR IDEAL SPORT.
I freely admit that this is conjecture and speculation on my part. but dont spout nonsense that I’m bringing soccer or basketball into this.
[quote]
My point is, due to OL being a vastly more popular sport – in some country, a national sport – that, by default, it would attract the best athletes, much like how NFL attracts North America’s best athlete, much like how Soccer attracts South America and Europe’s best athlete. Do you get it, now? The sport with bigger popularity will generally attract the best athlete. Powerlifting is NOT a big sport by any mean. It is a niche sport.
It does not have the popularity to attract the best athletes. When was the last time you heard a little kid say, “When I grow up I want to be a weightlifter?” Never. This is also the reason why America has failed to produce any world or Olympic champion within the last 40-50 year, because Weightlifting is NOT popular in America. American kids grow up wanting to be in the NFL, the NBA, NHL, NOT WL or PL. However, you will hear that much more often in countries like China, where sports such as gymnastic and WL is their only way to achieve fame and get themselves out of poverty. I don’t get how this concept is so alien to you. It applies across ALL sports. [/quote]
Do you see the contradiction between these two paragraphs? in the first paragraph you say that OL is the most popular strength sport in SOME countries. In teh second paragraph, you freely recognize that there are MANY OTHER COUNTRIES where it’s not that popular, you use the US as an example. Additionally, while china has an advantage with the largest population, that advantage is negated by an overall smaller physical structure. Ie, while they may have more people, do they have more 5’11"+ 270+ people? Let me ask you, if the strongest man in teh world is an american, do you think he’ll be an OLer? You’ve already said the finest athletes in hte us are drawn to the nfl.
So let me ask you - do YOU get it now? or do you need monosyllabics?
[quote]
KBCThird wrote:It says that a good powerlifter can reach the peak of ANOTHER lifting sport with a fraction of the training that all the other competitors had. Shane switched sports after the 96 Olympics (according to wikipedia, so take that for what its worth) That means in FOUR YEARS he rose from having never learned the liftes to 10th in the world. What does that say?
You’re once again showing your biased towards PL. Do I have to repeat this again? I’m NOT arguing which sports DEVELOPS stronger athletes; I am arguing which sports HAS the better athlete. Shane Hammon being a good WL despite few years of WL does not say that PL are strong – it says Shane Hammon, as an individual, is blessed with great genetic.
And guess what, Shane Hammon proves my point: Due to WL being the more popular sport, Shane Hammon, original a PL, SWITCHED over to OL. Do you get what I’m saying? The best athlete flocks to the bigger sport.[/quote]
I’m not biased towards PL. I dont compete as a PL. I enjoy following all manner of strength sports and feel I’ve learned a lot from artur drechslers WL Encyclopedia as well as conversations with acquaintances who compete in OL. However, what I AM biased against is your poor arguments. Shane decided he wanted to go to the olympics, THAT was an individual choice. OL is not the more POPULAR sport in the US, its just not an olympic sport. OL’s popularity in china means f— all to shane.
Furthermore, I dont care whether or not you’re arguing which sport DEVELOPS strength better - because I am. If you’re interested in figuring out which sport lucked into happening to have teh strongest individual then its a total crapshot, a statistical numbers game that is utterly without meaning because no matter how LIKELY an outcome is, if theres a chance of another outcome, you CANNOT without absolute certainty state the more likely outcome as fact. But I’ve already elucidated above why I disagree that you even have any idea of which sport likeliest has the strongest athlete.
[quote]
KBCThird wrote:Additionally. I’m not splitting hairs, because if you think a drug-tested squat in the IPF is the same as an untested squat in the USPF, or if you want to get really out there, the IPA, it just demonstrates your lack of familiarity with the multiple interpretations of “squat.” Additionally, Shane didnt squat 1000 raw. I dont know whether he just had wraps or whether he was using a light supersuit, but Don Reinhoudt owns the raw record, squatting 9 something with just a belt.
Again, powerlifting is so fractured that holding the record for the heaviest deep squat (not a high squat) with knee wraps (but no suit) is sort of like being the kid in grammar school who holds the record for eating most worms during recess - there aint a hell of a lot of competition.
You are still splitting hair, because you’re bringing up utterly irrelevant points. I don’t care for different PL squats or federation – it has nothing with my point of which sport has the better athlete.[/quote]
Wow, let me make this simple for you: If someone who was stronger than shane competed in a different federation, and smashed shane’s record, Shane would still own his record because his fed (shane’s fed) would not recognize the new one.
It’s easy to hold onto records when the people who might challenge tehm are off competing in other federations.
[quote]
KBCThird wrote:Misha’s background is OL, Zydrunas’ is PL. You’ve successfully proven that a good OLer is approximately as good at strongman as a good PLer is at strongman. The comparisons mean nothign when they prove either sides point.
LOL, stop being so biased. What I’ve clearly demonstrated is that a GOOD weightlifter can hang with the VERY ELITE PL. Because, when comparing to the likes of Reza, Chemerkin, Alexyev, Kurlovitch, Pisarenko, Redding, Tarenko (the list goes on and on), Misha is merely a good weightlifter compared to these guys. It’s fact. Like I said, when you have a TRUE ELITE WL like the guys I just named, I am willing to be, based on Misha’s performance, they would absolutely crush any and all current PL records if they actually concentrated on it.
But I digress. My original point still remains: OL has the better athletes, not because they do OL, but because they were judged gifted and suitable for strength sports of ANY kind. [/quote]
And im saying that you cant base ANYTHING on misha’s performance. That’s MISHA’S performance. His own INDIVIDUAL attributes may lend him to being very good in both. Past and current champions would certainly have all the attributes that misha has that make you a good OLer (and have them to a greater degree than misha) but they may or may not share the specific attributes that allow him to challenge for strongman championships. In fact the more I think about it, this may be the weakest part of your argument
[quote] KBCThird wrote:It IS a stretch. One man does not prove anything. Theres so much more to being a good PLer than just being strong - using your equipment for one - and theres so much more to being a good strongman than just being strong - familiarity with the equipment for one. But there’s equally more to being a good OLer than just being strong - flexibility and technique come to mind.
Actually, no, it’s not a stretch. In this case, one man DOES prove something. If your average NFL running back can smoke an average rugby player (and this would be very likely), what does it say about the explosiveness of NFL athletes? They are stronger and faster. What does it say that when an everyday weightlifter like Misha come over and compete with PL and strongman’s very best and keeps up with them? It says OL athletes are, on average, are more gifted for strength sports. [/quote]
we’re not talking about the average. At least, none of teh rest of us are, you seem to be talking in circles, so maybe you’re discussing this yourself. But at any rate, the average NFL rb being faster than the average rugby player DOES NOT PRECLUDE TEH FASTEST MAN OF THE WHOLE GROUP (nfl rb’s + rugby players) FROM BEING A RUGBY PLAYER. That is basic logic, hopefully you can follow
I absolutely agree, if one can OL, they can absolutely learn the technique to compete in unequipped, ie raw, PL comps. BUT IT DOESNT WORK THE OTHER WAY. You cant compare bolton’s strength in the snatch and the clean and jerk to reza’s if he lacks the technique and flexibility. Hell, I might be able to out-total bolton in the snatch and the clean&jerk. That does NOT make me stronger than him.
OL can be a poor indicator of an individual’s strength when technique - and not strength - is the limiting factor.
wow, i feel like i just got done explaining things to a belligerent 8 year old.
)